LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. ; 

djjap, — ffiopjrigJji !f o.~. ... .. 

Shelf..,.!.... 

UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. ! 



r 



THE 



EVOLUTION OF EPISCOPACY 

AND 

ORGANIC METHODISM. 




REV. THOMAS B. NEELY, Ph.D., D.D., 

Author of " Young Workers in the Church ; or, the Training and Organiza 
tion of the Young People for Christian Activity ; " " The Church 
Lyceum: Its Organization and Management ;" 41 Par- 
liamentary Practice," etc. 




NEW YORK: PHILLIPS & HUNT. 
CI NC INN A TI: CRANSTON & STOWE. 
1888. 



Copyright, 1888, by 
PHILLIPS & HUNT, 

New York. 



°* CONo RESs 



TO 

THE HONORED BISHOPS 

OF THE 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
IN 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

THIS WORK IS 



PREFACE. 



ROM the seed evolved the plant, from 



ism, and from simple beginnings have been 
evolved great ecclesiastical organizations. 

Some of these ecclesiastical evolutions invite 
our investigation. In this study of history 
we will consider the evolution of the later 
episcopacy from the simple forms of the early 
Christian Church, the modification of views in 
the Church of England after the Protestant 
Reformation, the change of Wesley's views in 
regard to Church government, the gradual 
evolution of organic Methodism, the growth of 
Methodism in America, the validity of Meth- 
odist ordinations, and the propriety and legit- 
imacy of the organization of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

In treating the latter point, we will take a 
view of the ecclesiastical conditions existing in 




evolved the complex organ- 



6 



Preface. 



America after the Revolutionary War, and give 
a sketch of the organization of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church. 

The evolution of organic Methodism is one 
of the marvelous facts of modern times, and is 
worthy the study of the general reader as well 
as of the ecclesiastical student, and one of the 
most striking features of this organism is its 
system of supervision. 

The episcopacy of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church is an important part of its polity. 
It is therefore necessary that it be properly 
understood. 

As the episcopate is denned the polity of 
the denomination will be molded, and the re- 
gard of those who are not members will depend 
largely upon their having, in some measure, a 
correct view of this great office. 

From 1784, when the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America was 
organized, there have been a number of dis- 
cussions of great interest concerning this high 
office, but the generation familiar with the 
old controversies has passed away, and a new 
generation, not familiar with those discussions 



Preface. 7 

and the opinions of the founders of the Church, 
has come upon the stage of action. 

That the results of those controversies should 
not be lost sight of, and that the new genera- 
tion should understand the status of the epis- 
copate in the Methodist Episcopal Church, it 
has been deemed wise to collate the views of 
the founders of the Church, and to formulate 
the doctrine of the episcopacy as held by the 
representative men and the councils of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church from 1784 to 
1884, thus covering the first century of the 
history of the organization. 

As the founders of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church claimed that their episcopacy was in 
harmony with the episcopate of the early 
Christian Church in New Testament times, the 
work will open with a brief presentation of the 
nature of the bishopric in that period of the 
Church. 

As Methodism sprang from the Church of 
England, a portion of the work will be devoted 
to views of the episcopacy as held in that body. 

As the Eev. John Wesley, M.A., of Oxford 
University, was the founder of Methodism and 



s 



Preface. 



was looked upon as the head of Methodism in 
America, a summary of his opinions will very 
properly have a place. 

In this inquiry the effort will be to bring 
forth things both " new and old ;" for the old 
may be as valuable as the new, and the new 
and the old together may add to each other's 
force. In stating facts as recorded by others, 
and in citing opinions, we will, in many in- 
stances, prefer to quote the very words rather 
than to give a digest in our own language. In 
this way the reader will not only have the fact, 
but, with the verbatim quotation before him, 
will be better able to form his own judgment 
as to the force of the citation. 

The history involved touches various 
Churches in Europe and America, and may, 
therefore, interest various classes of readers. 

T. B. Neely. 

Philadelphia, February 6, ] 888. 



CONTENTS. 



Chapter Page 
I. The Bishopric in the Early Christian Church 11 

II. Episcopacy in the Church op England 52 

III. Wesley's Views op Episcopacy, Ordination, and 

Church Government 86 

IV. Wesley's Relation to the Episcopate op American 

Methodism 147 

V. The Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 235 

VI. The Superintendency 299 

VII. The Episcopate from 1784 until the Death of As- 

bury 316 

VIII. The Bishopric from the Death of Asbury to 1844. ... 374 

IX. The General Conference of 1844 387 

X. The Episcopate from 1844 to 1884 409 

XL The General Conference of 1884 422 

XII. Conclusion 430 

Contents of Chapters 444-448 



THE 

EPISCOPACY OF METHODISM. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE BISHOPRIC IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

IT HE question of the bishopric in the early Chris- 
. tian Church is largely a question as to the rela- 
tive status of bishops and presbyters. Were they 
the same, or different ? If they were different, what 
was the nature of that difference ? It is, therefore, 
at the beginning, a matter of definition, and, conse- 
quently, a brief reference to derivation and defini- 
tion will not be out of place. 

The Greek emoKonoq, epishopos (Latin episcopus), 
meaning an overseer or superintendent, is from emotco- 
Treu), episkopeo, to look upon, to inspect, or watch 
over, and this is compounded from em, epi, upon, and 
ofconeo), skopeOy to look. From episcopus comes the 
Anglo-Saxon biscop, and, so, our English word 
bishop. 

The word presbyter is from the Greek npecPvTepog, 
presbuteros, which means elder, or older. In ecclesi- 
astical usage, therefore, the word elder, which is de- 



12 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



rived from the Anglo-Saxon, and the word presbyter, 
which comes from the Greek, mean the same thing. 
From the literal meaning of the words it must appear 
that one might be a npeopvrepog, or presbyter, and an 
emaicoTToc;, or bishop, at the same time. That is to 
say, one might be an elder and, at the same time, an 
overseer. Literally, one might be an older person 
and at the same time be a superintendent, having the 
oversight of something. 

The question, however, is as to the ecclesiastical, or, 
at this particular moment, the New Testament, use 
of the terms. The elders were originally what the 
word primarily meant — namely, he older persons ; 
but afterward the word was technically applied to 
those who were elevated to the position of dignity 
formerly occupied by those of advanced years, or 
because of their headship of families. . 

The Eev. Edwin Hatch, M.A., in the Bampton 
Lectures of 1880, traces the gradual change of appli- 
cation in a very ingenious manner. He says : " The 
patriarchal state of society, in which families lived 
apart, and the head of the family was its adminis- 
trator and judge, was succeeded in many parts of the 
world by the communal system, in which the govern- 
ment of an aggregation of families was in the hands 
of a council of heads of families — the elders of the 
commune. And just as the patriarchal system sur- 
vived through many modifications of social circum- 
stances as an underlying theory of domestic govern- 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 13 



ment which has not wholly passed away even from 
modern society, so the communal system survived 
through many varieties of political organization as a 
system of local administration. 

"It is found, for example, on the banks of the 
Nile : long after Egypt had been so far Hellenized 
that official documents were drawn up in Greek, w T e 
find from an extant papyrus that the presence of the 
elder of a village is necessary to the validity of an 
administrative act. It is found also in Palestine, 
and its presence there had so important a bearing 
upon the early organization of the Christian Churches 
as to render some account of it a necessary prelim- 
inary to the further consideration of that organization. 
It is recognized both in the Mosaic legislation and 
throughout the Old Testament history. . . . The 
elders of those early times were probably like the 
sheykhs who have continued to the present day both 
among the Bedouins of the desert and in the settled 
villages of the Arabian peninsula. Their tenure of 
office rested rather upon the general consent than 
upon formal appointment, and the limits of their 
authority were but loosely defined. But in the in- 
terval between the close of the Old Testament and 
the beginning of the New, a more definite form 
seems to have been given to this primitive institution. 
It may be gathered from the Talmud that out of the 
elders or chief men of ever} 7 community a certain 
number had come to be officially recognized, and that 



14: The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



definite rules were laid down for their action. Side 
by side with the synagogue of a town, but distinct 
from it, was the ovvedpiov, or local court.. The 
former was the general assembly or ' congregation ' 
of the people ; the latter was the ' seat ' of the elders. 
The two institutions were so far in harmony with one 
another that the meetings of the local court were 
held in the synagogue, and that in the meetings of 
the synagogue for its own proper purposes the elders 
of the local courts had seats of honor, the nporoica- 
dedplag, which our Lord describes the Pharisees as: 
coveting: and hence the word synagogue is some- 
times used where the word synedrion would be more 
exact : but the distinction between the two is clearly 
established, and is of great importance. 

" So firm was the hold which this system obtained 
upon the Jews that they carried it with them into 
the countries of the dispersion. ... It seems certain 
upon the evidence that in these communities, to which 
in the first instance the Apostles naturally addressed 
themselves, there existed a governing body of elders 
whose functions were partly administrative and partly, 
disciplinary. . . . Consequently, when the majority 
of the members of a Jewish community were con- 
vinced that Jesus was the Christ, there was nothing 
to interrupt the current of their former common 
life. There was no need for secession, for schism, 
for a change in the organization. . . . There is no 
trace of a break in the continuity : and there is con- 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 



lo 



sequently a strong presumption, which subsequent 
history confirms, that the officers who continued to 
bear the same names in the same community exer- 
cised functions closely analogous to those which they 
exercised before ; in other words, that the elders of 
the Jewish community which had become Christian 
were, like the elders of the Jewish communities 
which remained Jewish, officers of administration 
and of discipline." * 

As the first Christians were Jews, and hence were 
familiar with the forms of the synagogue worship and 
government, it was quite natural that the primary 
idea of Christian ecclesiasticism would grow out of, 
or at least bear some similarity to, the customs of Ju- 
daism or of the Jewish synagogue ; and, therefore, as 
in the synagogue government there were elders, it 
was to be expected that the same people would have 
elders when they were formed into Christian churches. 

Mr. Hatch undertakes also to show that the origin 
of the presbyterate " in those communities of which 
the members were Gentiles is equally natural, though 
rather more complex." f He maintains, first, " that 
government by a council or committee was all but 
universal in the organizations with which Christianity 
came into contact." 

* Tfie Organization of the Early Christian Churches, by Edwin Hatch, 
M.A., Vice-Principal of St. Mary Hall and Grinfield Lecturer in 
the Septuagint, Oxford. Second Edition Revised, London, 1882, 
pp. 56-62. f Ibid., p. 62. 



16 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



" Every municipality of the empire was managed 
by its curia or senate. Every one of the associations, 
political or religions, with which the empire swarmed 
had its committee of officers. It was, therefore, an- 
tecedently probable, even apart from Jewish influ- 
ence, that when the Gentiles who had embraced 
Christianity began to be sufficiently numerous in a 
city to require some kind of organization, that organ- 
ization should take the prevailing form. . . . The 
names of the governing body varied, but they all 
imply presidency or government, and they are always 
used in the plural." * 

Then he undertakes to account for " the fact that 
the members of such council or committee were 
known by a name which implies seniority." He 
finds " the idea of respect for seniority in many 
places and in many forms. So strong was this idea 
that the terms which were relative to it were often 
used as terms of respect without reference to age. 
In the philosophical schools the professor was some- 
times called 6 Trpea(3vrepog. In the ascetic communities 
of Egypt and Palestine respect for seniority was 
strongly marked, not only in the common usages of 
life, but also and especially in the assemblies, where 
the members sat in ranks, the younger beneath the 
elder, and where it was the task of the eldest and 
most experienced to discourse about divine things. . . . 
There was thus an antecedent probability, apart from 

* Hatcli : Organization of the Early Christian Churches, pp. 62, 63. 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 



17 



Jewish influence, not only that the Christian commu- 
nities, when organized, would be governed by a coun- 
cil, but also that in the appointment of the members 
of such a council seniority would be a prime qualifi- 
cation. And this we find to have been the fact in 
the case. Out of the several names which the mem- 
bers of the Christian councils bore, one ultimately 
survived the rest : they continue to be known to 
modern times as ' presbyters.' " * 

The fact, however, that the apostles were Jews and 
that the early Christian churches were made up 
largely from Jewish converts would be sufficient of 
itself to account for the creation or continuance of 
the eldership. We find that the early Christian 
Church had its elders, without much if any delay. 
Thus we read in Acts xi, 30, of the elders of the 
church in Jerusalem, and in Acts xiv, 23, we read of 
Paul and Barnabas appointing " elders in every 
church." 

Mr. Hatch also undertakes to show that the idea 
and name of the episcopate came from facts and 
conditions which existed outside of the Christian 
Cnurch. He shows that during the first centuries 
of the Christian era there was a common tendency 
toward the formation of associations. The most im- 
portant were religious associations and associations 
for the purpose of almsgiving, and Hatch remarks 
that " it is clear from the nature of the case that in 

* Hatch: Organization of the EarVy Christian Chwches, pp. 63-65. 
2 



IS 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



communities which grew up under such circumstances, 
and in which the eleemosynary element was so promi- 
nent, the officer of administration and finance must 
have had an important place." He further observes 
that " if we turn to the contemporary non-Christian 
associations of Asia Minor and Syria — to the nearest 
neighbors, that is to say, of the Christian organiza- 
tions — we find that the officers of administration and 
finance were chiefly known by one or other of two 
names, not far distant from one another in either 
form or meaning. The one was km\Lz\r\Tr\(;, which has 
this additional interest, that it was the designation of 
the chief officers of the Essenes : the other was the 
name which became so strongly impressed on the of- 
ficers of the Christian societies as to have held its 
place until modern times, and which in almost all 
countries of both East and West has preserved its form 
through all the vicissitudes of its meaning — in the 
Greek Enlononog, the English bishop. There is this 
further point to be noted in reference to these names, 
that they were used not only in private associations 
but also in municipalities : and that they were applied 
not only to permanent or quasi-permanent officers, but 
also to the governing body, or a committee of the 
governing body, when intrusted with administration 
of funds for any special purpose. 

" JSTow, in the Christian communities there appears 
to have been from the very early times a body of of- 
ficers : it must be inferred from the identity of the 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 



19 



names which were employed that those officers were 
in relation to the Christian communities what the 
seriate was in relation to a municipality, and what 
the committee was in reference to an association. 
They were known collectively by a name which is 
common in both relations, that of ordo ; they were 
known individually as well as collectively by a name 
which was common to the members of the Jewish 
avvkdpiob and to the members of the Greek yepovaiai of 
Asia Minor — that of npe^vrepoc : they were also 
known — for I shall here assume what the weight of 
evidence has rendered practically indisputable — by the 
name kmano^oi. In their general capacity as a gov- 
erning body they were known by names which were 
in current use for a governing body : in their special 
capacity as administrators of Church funds they were 
known by a name which was in current use for such 
administrators."* 

Here is the opinion of this scholar, who has lately 
made the question a special study, that the -npeofiv~e- 
poi, or presbyters, and the ettlokottoi, or bishops, in the 
early Christian Church were the same persons, the one 
name referring to one thing and the other referring 
to another. That presbyters and bishops were not 
two different orders, but different names for the same 
order, he affirms the " weight of evidence has rendered 
practically indisputable," and in a foot-note he says : 
" The admissions of both mediaeval and modern writers 

* Hatch: Organization of the Early Christian Churches, pp. 36-39. 



20 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



of almost all schools of theological opinion have 
practically removed this from the list of disputed 
questions." 

That in the early- Christian Church the words 
presbyter and bishop were titles given to the same 
men and to the same clerical order is admitted by the 
best authorities. 

" In the New Testament the ordinary office bear- 
ers in the Christian community have a variety of 
designations. They are called TTpoiorafievoi, irpeo(3vre- 
poi, kmoKOTioi, noiiieveg, and fjyovfievoi ; but all these 
names are used evidently to express the same kind of 
officers, for they are continually used interchangeably 
the one for the other. 

" The identity of the terms bishop and presby- 
ter within the apostolic Church is now so uni- 
versally admitted by scholars that the sole ques- 
tion really is, When did bishops begin to exist as 
separate and superior officers ? and the dispute 
becomes one of historical facts rather than dogmatic 
theories." * 

Pope says : " The terms employed to denote the 
ordinary spiritual office-bearers of the Christian 
community are in their English equivalents presby- 
ters or elders, and bishops or overseers or superin- 
tendents. These, however, constitute one order in 
the New Testament."t 

*Ency. Brit, Ninth Edition, art. "Christianity." 
f Pope's Systematic Theology, vol. iii, p. 342. 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 



21 



Archdeacon Farrar declares that " tlie distinction 
between ' bishop ' and ' presbyter ' " " is not found in 
the New Testament." * 

Dean Stanley says : " It is certain that through- 
out the first century and for the first years of the 
second — that is, through the latter chapters of the 
Acts, the Apostolical Epistles, and the writings of 
Clement and Hernias — bishop and presbyter were 
convertible terms. 1 ' f 

Again, says Stanley : " In the first age there was 
no such marked distinction as we now find between 
the different orders of the clergy. It was only by 
slow degrees that the name bishop became appropri- 
ated to one chief pastor raised high in rank and sta- 
tion above the mass of the clergy.'' $ 

Turning from the testimony of the English schol- 
ars, we may add that of a distinguished prelate of the 
" Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America." The Eight Rev. H. U. Onderdonk, 
D.D., Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, 
makes this admission : " The name 1 bishop ' which 
now designates the highest grade of the ministry, 
is not appropriated to this office in Scripture. That 
name is given to the middle order, or presbyters ; 
and all that we read in the New Testament con- 
cerning 'Bishops' (including, of course, the words 
' overseers ' and i oversight,' which have the same 

* Farrar: Early Days of Christianity, Appendix xiv. 

f Stanley's Christian Institutions, p. 171, % Ibid., p. 177. 



22 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



derivation,) is to be regarded as pertaining to the 
middle grade." * 

The confession of episcopal authorities like Hatch, 
Stanley, and Farrar, of the Church of England, and 
Bishop Onderdonk, of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, is of very great value, and for the purposes 
of this inquiry may be held to be worth much more 
as evidence than the testimony of anti-episcopal 
scholars, though the declarations of scholars of non- 
episcopal denominations is equally clear, and, as to the 
thoroughness of scholarship, equally strong. That in 
churches where some claim that bishops are of higher 
clerical order than presbyters the leading scholars 
admit that, in New Testament times, bishops and 
presbyters were the same order stamps their con- 
fession with the presumption of conclusiveness. 

The early Christian fathers show the original iden- 
tity of bishops and presbyters as to ministerial order. 

Irenseus, who died about A. D. 202, uses the words 
bishop and presbyter interchangeably. Thus he 
speaks of Polycarp as a bishop, and, in another place, 
as an apostolical presbyter, dnooTohinbg Trpeofivrepog. 

Justin Martyr, the Christian philosopher who 
suffered martyrdom, A. D. 165, does not speak of 
bishops, but, referring to the service in the churches, 
make mention of deacons, and of the president of the 
brethren (jrpnsoTcbg r&v adeXty&v), who was evidently 
nothing more than the officiating presbyter. 

* Bishop Onderdonk's Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 12. 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 



23 



Polycarp, who wrote about A. D. 140, refers to two 
orders only. In his Epistle to the Philippians this 
Bishop of Smyrna opens with the words : " Polycarp, 
and the presbyters with him," or, as it is also rendered 
" Polycarp, and those who with him are presbyters." * 
He does not even mention the word bishop, but uses 
the words presbyters and deacons, and exhorts the 
Philippians to be " subject to the presbyters and dea- 
cons," showing that they were the governing bodies. 
If there had been a bishop of superior order at Phi- 
lippi, doubtless Polycarp would have addressed or re- 
ferred to him, and the inference, therefore, must be 
that there was no higher order than that of the pres- 
byters, and it will be remembered that Paul in his 
salutation to the church at Philippi addresses the 
bishops and deacons, showing that bishops and pres- 
byters were the same order. 

Clement of Pome, who wrote about A. D. 96, re- 
cognizes, in his Epistles to the Corinthians, only two 
orders, under the titles of bishops and deacons. He 
says the apostles " appointed the first-fruits [of their 
labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be 
bishops and deacons of those who should afterward 
believe" (First Epistle of Clement, chap. xlii) ; and in 
another place (chap, xliv) he uses the title presbyters 
in reference to those in the episcopate, thus showing 
the identity of presbyters and bishops. - 

The recently discovered Greek manuscript The 
* Clark's Edinburgh Edition of the Apostolic Fathers, p. 69. 



24 The ? Episcopacy of Methodism. 

Teaching of the Apostles also reveals that in the early 
days of the Christian Church there was no clerical 
order higher than the eldership. This is important 
evidence, for the Didache, or Doctrine of the Twelve 
Apostles, belongs to a very early period. The best 
critics agree that it was of Jewish origin and that Pal- 
estine was the place of its composition, that it is older 
than the Shepherd of Hennas, older than the Epistle 
of Barnabas, and that it was in all probability known 
to and used by Justin Martyr and Ignatius, which 
makes it prior to A. D. 115, which the best critics fix 
as the time of the death of Ignatius.* Lightfoot puts 
it within from A. D. 80 to A. D. 110. Schaff puts 
it not later than between A. D. 90 and A. D. 100. 
Funk assigns it to the last quarter of the first century, 
and Saba tier dates it as early as A. D. 50, before St. 
Paul's great missionary journeys were undertaken, 
while the first editor, Bryennios, placed it from A. D. 
120 to A. D. 160, and Harnack puts it in the period 
between A. D. 135 and A. D. 165.f But whether we 
accept the earliest date assigned by these critics or 
one of the later ones, this document is of great an- 
tiquity, and has great weight in determining the 
mntter under investigation, and it shows that in those 
early days there was no ministerial order higher than 
the eldership. 

* Treatise on' the Teaming of the Apostles, by Dr. Charles Taylor, 
Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, England. 

\ Lightfoot on Philippians. Eighth Edition, London, 1885, p. 349. 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 25 



The Greek address of the " Teaching " is the 
Teaching of the Lord, through the Twelve Apostles, 
to the Nations. The fifteenth chapter opens with 
the words : "Now appoint for yourselves bishops and 
deacons worthy of the Lord," " XeipoTovijoare ovv 
eavrolg emoKonovg Kai diatcovovg a^iovq rov Y^vpLov" 
This shows that at the time the Teaching was written 
the Church did not know more than two orders, and 
that the ztt'iokottqi, or bishops, to whom reference is 
made, were those who were also called npsoftvrepoi, or 
presbyters. It will also be noticed in passing that 
the matter of appointment was with the churches.* 

* Note on chapter xv of TJie Teaching of the Apostles, by Pro- 
fessors Hitchcock and Brown: '"Now appoint for yourselves.' 
XELpoTovrjoare ovv eavroic'] Xsiporoveu occurs only twice in the New 
Testament (Acts xiv, 23; 2 Cor. viii, 19), and, in both places, means 
simply to 'appoint.' Josephus used the word in the same sense in 
Ant, xiii, 2, 2, where Alexander Balas, the pretended son of Antio- 
chus Epiphanes, ' appoints ' Jonathan high-priest. The same mean- 
ing appears in Ant, vii, 9, 3 ; viii, 11, 1. In Ant., vi, 5, 4, however, 
the noun x EL P 0T0VLa is use( ^ of the coronation of Saul. In Josephus, 
accordingly, the prevailing sense of x £l P 0T0VE0) is to ' appoint.' This 
is the meaning of the word also in the epistles of Ignatius (about 
115 A. D.) { See Philadelphians, chap. 10; Smyrnseans, chap. 11; 
Poly carp, chap. 7. 

" But in the ' Apostolic Canons,' i and ii, and in the ' Apostolic 
Constitutions,' viii. 4, 5, x El P 0T0V£Ld means to 'ordain.' This repre- 
sents the usage of the third century, as the New Testament, Jo- 
sephus, and Ignatius represent the usage of the first and second 
centuries. 

" Now, it is noteworthy that in the 'Apostolic Constitutions,' vii, 31 
(the section corresponding to the passage before us), the word em- 



26 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Turning to the Kew Testament, which is the ulti- 
mate and sufficient authority, the case is very clear. 
It will be necessary to cite only a few instances show- 
ing that the same persons were called bishops and 
presbyters. 

Paul sends for the "elders," or presbyters, of the 
Church of Ephesus (Acts xx, 17) to meet him at 
Miletus, and in his address he thus charges them : 
" Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over 
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." 
(Acts xx, 28.) Here the Greek word rendered over- 
seers is eiTioKo-ovg, which means bishops, and, so, in 
the Revised Version, it is rendered bishops, and the 
equivalent word, overseers, is put in the margin. 
Kow Paul sends for the "elders" (and the Greek 
word is np£of3vTEpovg< or presbyters, as it is rendered 
in the margin of the Revised Version), but, when these 
elders, or TTpeofiv-Epoi, come, he addresses them as 

ployed is not x ei P 0T0V ^ tJ ; which then meant to ' ordain,' but -n-poxetp'i- 
£o/iai, a new usage having obtained. In this fifteenth chapter of the 
' Teaching,' x ei P°" 0V ^ u is employed, evidently, in its original sense of 
' appoint.' This indicates the high antiquity of the document, ante- 
dating by decades, if not by a whole century, the 'Apostolic Canons,' 
and the ' Apostolic Constitutions.' 

"As for the officers to be ' appointed,' only bishops and deacons 
are mentioned. By bishops must, of course, be meant presbyters, or 
elders. There is no sign of a bishop as distinguished from a pres- 
byter, nor of a ruling elder as distinguished from a teaching elder; 
and, apparently, there was in eacli congregation a plurality both of 
bishops (or elders) and deacons." 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 27 



enioftonoi, or bishops, showing that, as he called the 
presbyters bishops, he understood that the word 
presbyter and bishop meant the same ministerial 
order.* 

It is also worthy of note that the apostles refer 
to themselves as elders. Thus in 1 Pet. v, 1, the 
apostle says : " The elders which are among you I 
exhort, who am also an elder," or, as it is in the Re- 
vised Version, " a fellow-elder." Here Peter speaks 
of himself as an elder. 

In the second verse of the same chapter the 
apostle says to these elders : " Feed the flock of 
Christ which is among you, taking the oversight 
thereof." Now, to take oversight is to be an over- 
seer or bishop, and the Greek word rendered over- 
sight in this place is emGKunovvTeg, which means 
acting the part of an episcopos or bishop ; so that 
the work of an elder was episcopal and these elders 
were bishops. Again, in the Second Epistle of John, 
the apostle says: " The elder unto the elect lady ; " 
so that John, the apostle, calls himself an elder or 
presbyter, and Archdeacon Farrar has a long disserta- 
tion proving that the " John the presbyter" referred 
to by some of the Christian fathers was " John the 
apostle." f Mosheim remarks : " That the terms 
bishops and presbyters are applied promiscuously, as 
synonymous, in the books of the New Testament, is 

* See also Phil. i. 1 ; Titus 1, 1, etc. 

f Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, Appendix. 



28 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



most clearly manifest from Acts xx, 17, 2S ; Phil, 
i, 1 ; Tit. i, 5, 7." * 

Thus the writings of the Christian fathers and the 
New Testament show that in the early days of the 
Christian Church bishops and elders were the same 
persons, and that the words represented the same 
clerical order. A better summary of the whole ques- 
tion cannot be found than that given by Dr. Light- 
foot, Bishop of Durham, in his commentary on the 
Epistle to the Philippians, and here it will be profit- 
able to quote from him on this point. In his disser- 
tation on " the synonyms 'bishop' and 'presbyter'" 
he says : 

" It is a fact now generally recognized by theolo- 
gians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of 
the New Testament the same officer in the Church is 
called indifferently ' bishop ' (kmofcorrog) and ' elder,' 
or presbyter (npEoftvTepog). . . . 

" Episcopus, ' bishop,' ' overseer,' was an official 
title among the Greeks. In Athenian language it 
was used especially to designate commissioners ap- 
pointed to regulate a new colony or acquisition, so 
that the Attic ' bishop ' corresponded to the Spartan 
' harmost.' Thus the impostor who intrudes upon the 
colonists in Aristophanes f says, kmaKoixoq rj/co) Sevpo tw 
icvdfia) "kax&v. These officers are mentioned also in an 

* Mosheim's Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity in 
the First Three Centuries, vol. i, xxxviii, note, p. 1G2. 
f Av. 1022. 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 29 



inscription, Boeckh No. 73. The title, however, is 
not confined to Attic usage ; it is a designation, for 
instance, of the inspectors whose business it was to 
report to the Indian kings ; * of the commissioner ap- 
pointed by Mithridates to settle affairs in Ephesus ; f 
of magistrates who regulated the sale of provisions 
under the Romans ; \ and of certain officers in Rhodes 
whose functions are unknown. § 

" In the LXX. the word is common. In some 
places it signifies 'inspectors,' 'superintendents,' 
' taskmasters,' as 2 Kings xi, 19 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv, 
12, 17 ; Isa. lx, 17. In others it is a higher title, 
' captains ' or ' presidents.' Neh. xi, 9, 14, 22. Of 
Antiochus Epiphanes we are told that when he de- 
termined to overthrow the worship of the one true 
God he ' appointed commissioners (kmoKonovg, bish- 
ops) over all the people ' to see that his orders were 
obeyed. || The feminine ettloicottt}, which is not a clas- 
sical word, occurs very frequently in the LXX., de- 
noting sometimes the work, sometimes the office, of 
an emoitonog. Hence it passed into the language of 
the New Testament and of the Christian Church. 

" Thus, beyond the fundamental idea of inspection, 
which lies at the root of the word ' bishop,' its usage 

* Arrian, Ind., xii, 5. f Appian, Mithr., 48. 

\ Charisius in the Dig., 1. 4, 18. 
§ Ross, Inscr. Grcec. Ined., fasc. Ill, Nos. 275, 276. 
|j 1 Mace, i, 51 ; comp. Joseph., Ant, xii, 5, 4 ; in 2 Mace, v, 22, the 
word is tnLorcvTag. 



30 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



suggests two subsidiary notions also : (1) Responsi- 
bility to a superior power ; (2) the introduction of a 
new order of tilings. 

" The earlier history of the word presbyter >us (elder, 
presbyter, or priest) is much more closely connected 
with its Christian sense. If the analogies of the 
' bishop ' are to be sought chiefly among heathen na- 
tions, the name and office of the ' presbyter ' are es- 
sentially Jewish. Illustrations indeed might be found 
in almost all nations, ancient or modern, in the yepovoia 
of Sparta, for instance, in the ' senatus ' of Rome, in the 
'signoria' of Florence, or in the 'aldermen' of our 
own country and time, where the deliberative body 
originally took its name from the advanced age of its 
members. But among the chosen people we meet at 
every turn with presbyters or elders in Church and 
State from the earliest to the latest times. In the life- 
time of the lawgiver, in the days of the judges, through- 
out the monarchy, during the captivity, after the 
return, and under the Roman domination, the 6 elders' 
appear as an integral part of the governing body of 
the country. But it is rather in a special religious 
development of the office, than in these national and 
civil presbyteries, that we are to look for the proto- 
type of the Christian minister. Over every Jewish 
synagogue, whether at home or abroad, a council of 
'elders' presided. It was not unnatural, therefore, 
that, when the Christian synagogue took its place 
by the side of the Jewish, a similar organization 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 



31 



should be adopted with such modifications as cir- 
cumstances required ; and thus the name familiar 
under the old dispensation was retained under the 
new. 

" Of the identity of the ' bishop ' and ' presbyter ' 
in the language of the apostolic age the following 
evidence seems conclusive : 

" (1.) In the opening of this epistle St. Paul sa- 
lutes the ' bishops ' and ' deacons.' Now it is incred- 
ible that he should recognize only the first and third 
order, and pass over the second, though the second 
was absolutely essential to the existence of a church, 
and formed the staple of its ministry. It seems, 
therefore, to follow of necessity that the 'bishops' 
are identical with the ' presbyters.' . . . 

" (2.) In the Acts (xx, IT) St Paul is represented 
as summoning to Miletus the ' elders' or ' presbyters' 
of the church of Ephesus. Yet in addressing them 
immediately after he appeals to them as ' bishops ' or 
'overseers' of the Church (xx, 28). 

" (3.) Similarly St. Peter, appealing to the ' pres- 
byters ' of the churches addressed by him, in the same 
breath urges them to ' fulfill the office of bishops ' 
(emo/coTTovvreg) with disinterested zeal. 1 Pet. v, 1, 2. 

" (4.) Again, in the First Epistle to Timothy St. 
Paul, after describing the qualifications for the office 
of a ' bishop ' (iii, 1-7), goes on at once to say what is 
required of ' deacons' (iii, 8-13). lie makes no men- 
tion of presbyters. The term ' presbyter,' however, 



32 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



is not unknown to him ; for, having occasion in a 
later passage to speak of Christian ministers, he calls 
these officers no longer 'bishops,' but 'presbyters' 
(v, 17-19). 

" (5.) The same identification appears still more 
plainly from the apostle's directions to Titus (i, 5-7) : 
' That thou shouldest set in order the things that are 
wanting and ordain elders in every city, as I appointed 
thee ; if any one be blameless, the husband of one 
wife, having believing children who are not charged 
with riotonsness or unruly ; for a bishop (rev kmoico- 
ttov) must be blameless,'' etc. 

" (6.) I^or is it only in the apostolic writings that 
this identity is found. St. Clement of Rome wrote 
probably in the last decade of the first century, and 
in his language the terms are still convertible. 
Speaking of the apostles he says that 'preaching in 
every country and city ({caraxupag teal /card noXeig) they 
appointed their first-fruits, having tested them by 
the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of them that 
should believe (jxeXXovtuv ttlgtevelv).' 1 — § 42. A little 
later, referring to the disorganized state of the Co- 
rinthian Church, he adds : i Our apostles knew 
through the Lord Jesus Christ that there would be 
strife concerning the authority (em rov dvdfiarog) of 
the bishopric '....' We shall incur no slight guilt if 
we eject from the bishopric those who have presented 
the offerings (d&pa) unblamably and holily. Blessed 
are the presbyters who have gone before, whose de- 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 33 



parture was crowned with fruit and mature (olnveg 
ejicapnov teal reXetav eox<jv rrjv dvdXvoiv.) ' § 44 " * 

In regard to the history of the two words, presbyters 
and bishops, Lightfoot has also other interesting 
observations in which he maintains that the Christian 
presbytery was adopted from the Jewish synagogue. 
Referring to the persecutions and to the " disper- 
sion of the twelve on a wider mission," he says: 

" Since Jerusalem would no longer be their home 
as hitherto, it became necessary to provide for the 
permanent direction of the Church there; and for 
this purpose the usual government of the synagogue 
would be adopted. Now at all events for the first 
time we read of 'presbyters' in connection with the 
Christian brotherhood at Jerusalem. 

" From this time forward all official communica- 
tions with the mother Church are carried on through 
their intervention. To the presbyters Barnabas 
and Saul bear the alms contributed by the Gentile 
churches. The presbyters are persistently associated 
with the apostles, in convening the congress, in the 
superscription of the decree, and in the general settle- 
ment of the dispute between the Jewish and Gentile 
Christians. By the presbyters St. Paul is received 
many years later, on his last visit to Jerusalem, and to 
them he gives an account of his missionary labors 
and triumphs. 

*Lightfoot's Commentary on Philippians. Eighth Edition, London, 
1885, pp. 95-98. 
3 



34 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



"But the office was not confined to the mother 
Church alone. Jewish presbyters existed already in 
all the principal cities of the dispersion, and Chris- 
tian presbyteries would early occupy a not less wide 
area. On their very first missionary journey the 
apostles Paul and Barnabas are described as appoint- 
ing presbyters in every church. The same rule was 
doubtless carried out in all the brotherhoods founded 
later ; but it is mentioned here, and here only, be- 
cause the words of procedure on this occasion would 
suffice as a type of the apostles' dealings elsewhere 
under similar circumstances. 

"The name of the presbyter then presents no 
difficulty. But what must be said of the term 
'bishop?' It has been shown that in the apostolic 
writings the two are only different designations of 
one and the same office. How and where was this 
second name originated ? 

" To the officers of the Gentile churches alone is the 
term applied, as a synonym for presbyter. At 
Phil'ippi, in Asia Minor, in Crete, the presbyter is 
so called. In the next generation the title is em- 
ployed in a letter written by the Greek Church of 
Borne to the Greek Church of Corinth. Thus the 
word would seem to be especially Hellenic. Beyond 
this we are left to conjecture. But if we may as- 
sume that the directors of religious and social clubs 
among the heathen were commonly so called, it 
would naturally occur, if not to the Gentile Chris- 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 35 



tians themselves, at all events to their heathen asso- 
ciates, as a fit designation for the presiding members 
of the new society. The infant Church of Christ 
which appeared to the Jew as a synagogue would be 
regarded by the heathen as a confraternity. But, 
whatever may have been the origin of the term, it 
did not altogether dispossess the earlier name ' pres- 
byter,' which still held its place as a synonym 
even in' Gentile congregations. And, when at length 
the term bishop was appropriated to a higher office 
in the Church, the latter became again, as it had been 
at first, the sole designation of the Christian elder." * 
With such facts before us as the New Testament 
contains and as scholars produce from the records of 
the early history of the Christian Church, the reason 
for the use of the two names, presbyter and bishop, as 
applied to persons in precisely the same ministerial, 
order, is not hard to determine. The elder was a 
familiar title among the Jews, and, so, it has been 
observed that when the apostles address Jewish 
Christians they use the term elder or presbyter, but 
when they address Gentile converts, or those living 
outside of Palestine and where the Gentiles pre- 
ponderated, they use the word bishop, probably be- 
cause, as most or all of them spoke the Greek lan- 
guage and were familiar with Grecian ideas, the 
Greek word without the Jewish associations would be 

* Lightfoot's Dissertation on the Christian Ministry in Commentary 
on Philippians. Eighth Edition, London, 1885, pp. 193. 194. 



36 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



less objectionable or more easily understood than 
even a Greek word used to convey an idea drawn 
from the Jewish synagogue. 

Elder was more familiar to the Jews ; bishop was 
more familiar to the Gentile ; but the duties and 
rank of one and the other were the same. The pres- 
byters or elders were charged with the duty of over- 
sight, and that was the work of the episcopoi, or over- 
seers. The one originally referred to age or dignity, 
and the other to function, but as the presbyters had 
the function of oversight or superintendence, they 
were also episcopoi, or bishops, and so the words 
were used interchangeably. They were two words 
for the same thing. The elders were bishops, and 
the bishops were elders. 

Mosheim remarks that " when a number of Chris- 
tians were collected together sufficient to form a 
Church, certain men of gravity and approved faith 
were without delay appointed, either by the apostles 
themselves or their companions, with the assent of 
the multitude, to preside over it, under the title of 
presbyters or bishops. By the former of these titles 
was implied the prudence of old age, rather than 
age itself, in those who bore it ; the latter had allu- 
sion to the nature of the function wherewith they 
were charged." * 

Dean Stanley says : u The presbyters were the 
' sheikhs,' f the elders — those who by seniority had 
* Mosheim, vol. 1, xxxviii, p. 161. f Sheik, Arabic, a venerable old man. 



The Bishopric in the Eaely Church. 



37 



readied the first rank in the Jewish synagogue. The 
bishops were the same, viewed under another aspect 
— the 'inspectors,' the 'auditors,' of the Grecian 
churches." * 

Neander thus presents the case : " The name of 
presbyters, which was appropriated to this body, (the 
governing body of the Church), was derived from the 
Jewish synagogue. But in the Gentile churches 
they took the name sttlokottoi, bishops, a term more 
significant of their office in the language generally 
spoken by the members of these churches. The 
name of presbyters denoted the dignity of their office. 
That of bishops, on the other hand, was expressive 
rather of the nature of their office, eirioiiOTTeiv ri)v 
eKKXrjaiav, to take the oversight of the church. Most 
certainly no other distinction originally existed be- 
tween them." f 

Pope, in his Systematic Theology, very lucidly 
explains why elder is sometimes used, and why, 
again, bishop is used to indicate the same person, 
and his views sustain those already given. He says : 
" The differences between the terms are obvious. 
That of elder had reference to age or dignity, and 
was derived from Judaism ; that of bishop to office, 
and was derived from the Greeks. There is, there- 
fore, no office of eldership as such, but there is, of 

* Stanley's Christian Institutions, p. 172. 

f Neander's Introduction to Coleman's Apostolical and Primitive 
Church, p. 20. 



38 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



course, an emoKorrrj : this is mentioned once in a sad 
connection, and once as an object of desire. It is 
remarkable, however, that no episcopate is alluded to, 
in the sense of a collective body of bishops." * 

It appears, then, that in New Testament times, and 
even since the apostolic Church, the elders were 
bishops and the bishops were elders — the word elder 
or presbyter indicating the dignity and clerical order, 
and the word bishop indicating the official duty of 
overseeing or superintending ; for, as Pope remarks, 
" there is no office of eldership as such, but there is 
of course an emoKOTtri" the office of an erriGfconog. The 
eldership was the ministerial order, the episcopate the 
office of overseeing, and both belonged to the pres- 
byters. 

The parity of presbyters and bishops in New Tes- 
tament times is taught by the New Testament itself, 
the fathers of the early Church, and the scholarship of 
the present day. But how rapidly distinctions in the * 
use of these terms began to be introduced, and to 
what an extreme they have been carried, subsequent 
history sadly shows. 

It is an interesting study to observe how the title 
bishop, which in the early Church belonged to every 
presbyter, was gradually limited in its application to 
one particular presbyter among a body of presbyters, 
and then to those of a special class which came to be 
recognized as a distinct and superior order, and how 

* Pope's Systematic Theology, iii, p. 343. 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 39 

that, with the change in application, there came an in- 
crease of power and prerogative to the office of bishop. 

Referring to the origin of the supremacy of bish- 
ops, Hatch says : "I approach this question with 
the greater diffidence because an hypothesis has long 
been current which does not admit of direct refuta- 
tion, and which assigns the origin of this quasi-mon- 
archical government to an institution of either our 
Lord himself or the apostles acting under his express 
directions. But in spite of the venerable names by 
which, for many centuries and in many churches, 
this hypothesis has been maintained, and in spite also 
of the disadvantage under which any one labors who 
declines the short and easy road which it seems to 
offer, and winds his way through a dense under- 
growth of intricate facts, it is impossible, at least for 
some of us, to accept the belief that the episcopate 
forms an exception to the general course of the di- 
vine government of the world, and to refrain from 
proceeding to the inquiry whether any causes were 
in operation which are adequate to account for its 
supremacy, without resorting to the hypothesis of a 
special and extraordinary institution." * 

Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, in discussing the 
development of the episcopate, thus remarks : 

"For the opinion hazarded by Theodoret and 
adopted by many later writers, that the same offi- 

* Hatch on The Organization of the Early Christian Church. Second 
Edition, Revised, London, 1882, p. 84. 



40 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



cers in the Church who were first called apostles 
came afterward to be designated bishops, is base- 
less. If the two offices had been identical, the sub- 
stitution of the one name for the other would have 
required some explanation. But, in fact, the func- 
tions of the apostle and the bishop differed widely. 
The apostle, like the prophet or the evangelist, 
held no local office. He was essentially, as his name 
denotes, a missionary, moving about from place to 
place founding and confirming new brotherhoods. 
The only ground on which Theodoret builds his 
theory is a false interpretation of a passage in St. 
Paul. At the opening of the epistle to Philippi the 
presbyters (here called bishops) and deacons are 
saluted, while in the body of the letter one Epaphro- 
ditus is mentioned as an ' apostle' of the Philippians. 
If 'apostle' here had the meaning which is thus 
assigned to it, all the three orders of the ministry 
would be found at Philippi. But this interpretation 
will not stand. The true apostle, like St. Peter or 
St. John, bears this title as the messenger, the dele- 
gate, of Christ himself ; while Epaphroditus is only 
so styled as the messenger of the Philippian brother- 
hood ; and in the very next clause the expression is 
explained by the statement that he carried their alms 
to St. Paul. The use of the word here has a parallel 
in another passage, where messengers (or apostles) of 
the churches are mentioned. It is not, therefore, to 
the apostle that we must' look for the prototype of 



The Bishopric in the Early Churcei. 



41 



the bishop. How far, indeed, and in what sense the 
bishop may be called a successor of the apostles will 
be a proper subject for consideration ; but the succes- 
sion at least does not consist in an identity of office. 

" The history of the name itself suggests a different 
account of the origin of the episcopate. If bishop 
was at first used as a synonym for presbyter, and 
afterward came to designate the higher officer under 
whom the presbyter served, the episcopate, properly 
so called, would seem to have been developed from 
the subordinate office. In other words, the episcopate 
was formed not out of the apostolic order by localiza- 
tion, but out of the presbyterial by elevation ; and the 
title, which originally was common to all, came at 
length to be appropriated to the chief among them."* 

These are strong words from any scholar, but es- 
pecially from a prelate of the Church of England, in 
which so much is made of the episcopal office ; and 
these with the words of the scholarly Hatch, of the 
same Church, must have great weight. It is to the 
presbyters themselves that we are to look for the pri- 
mary influences which lifted a presbyter above his 
brother presbyters and gradually limited to him the 
title of bishop, and gave this elevated episcopate its 
marked supremacy. 

The body of presbyters exercised discipline and " a 
consensual jurisdiction in matters of dispute between 

* Lightfoot's Dissertation on the Christian Ministry in Commentary 
on Philippians. Eighth Edition, London, 1885, pp. 195, 196. 



42 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Christian and Christian." "In those early days it 
may have been the case that the assembly itself, or 
persons chosen by the assembly, acted as arbitrators ; 
and to this St. Paul's words point : ' If then ye have 
judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them 
to judge who are least esteemed in the church.' (1 Cor. 
6, 4.) But when the organization of the churches was 
more complete, it is clear that the jurisdiction belonged 
to the council of presbyters. ' Let not those who have 
disputes,' say the Clementines, ' go to law before the 
civil powers, but let them by all means be reconciled 
by the elders of the Church, and let them readily yield 
to their decision ' (Clement. Epist., Clem, ad Jacob., 
10.) " * 

One of the most important ideas in connection with 
the presbyterate, if not the most important, was that 
of governmental jurisdiction, and, hence, when the 
assembly convened it was quite natural that one should 
occupy the position of a presiding officer. So Ter- 
tullian said : " The most approved elders preside." f 

Hatch observes : " If we look at contemporary 
organizations, we find that the tendency toward the 
institution of a president was almost, if not altogether, 
universal. , . . "Whether we look at the municipal 
councils, at the private associations, religious and sec- 
ular, with which the East was honeycombed, at the 
provincial assemblies, at the board of magistrates, at 

* Hatch: Organization of Early Christian Church, pp. 12, 73. 
f Tertull. : ApoL, 39. 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 



43 



the administrative councils of the Jews both in Pal- 
estine and in the countries of the dispersion, or at the 
committees of the municipal councils, whose members 
sometimes bore in common with the Christian and 
the Jewish councils the names of ' elders' (irpeofivTepoi), 
we find in every case evidence of the existence of a 
presiding officer." * 

" These facts and these general considerations of 
probability seem adequate to account for the fact 
that the Christian communities were borne along with 
the general drift of contemporary organizations, and 
that the council of presbyters had a permanent presi- 
dent. They also seem to account for the fact that 
the functions of that council of presbyters, as de- 
scribed by Clement and Polycarp, are the same in 
kind as the functions of the bishop as described in the 
Ignatian epistles. But they are all compatible with 
the view that the early bishop stood to the presbyters 
in the relation of a dean to the canons of a cathedral, 
or of the chairman to the ordinary members of a com- 
mittee. They do not account for the fact that the 
bishops of the third and subsequent centuries claimed 
for themselves exceptional powers, and that the rela- 
tion of primacy ultimately changed into a relation of 
supremacy." f 

Gradually this presiding presbyter, or presiding 
elder, from the special oversight w T hich he had as the 

* Hatch : Organization of Early Christian Churches, pp. 84, 85. 
f Ibid., pp. 90, 91. 



44: The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



chief episcopos, was permitted to exclusively appro- 
priate the title of bishop, while the others retained 
the old name of presbyters, and, in course of time, 
from meaning merely the chief presbyter, the bishop 
was presumed to possess a distinct and superior cler- 
ical order carrying with it rights and privileges not 
possessed by mere presbyters. 

After a time there came the struggle for greater 
supremacy — " the struggle on the part of the bishops 
to act as sole judges,* without the ovvidpiov^ or 6 con- 
silium,' of presbyters, of which in early times they 
had been merely the presidents. But there are at 
least two significant indications that the original con- 
ception of the presbyterate never wholly passed away ; 
the one is the fact that in all the ordinals of the Latin 
Church, both in the prayers and the addresses to the 
people at the ordination of presbyters, church gov- 
ernment is a leading element in the conception of the 
presbyter's office ; the other is the fact that, after the 
parochial system had come to prevail, the presbyter 
who was put in charge of a parish was said to be sent 
not to teach but to rule (' ad regendum') ; the con- 
ception of his office which underlies this expression is 
preserved to us even in modern times in the familiar 
title of ' rector.' " f 

Hatch concludes that " adequate causes have been 
found not only for the existence of a president, 

* In the matter of disputes. 

f Hatch's Organization of Early Christian Churches, pp. 76, 77. 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 



45 



but also for his supremacy, without resorting to what 
is not a known fact, but only a counter-hypothesis — 
the hypothesis of a special institution." He holds 
that " the episcopate grew by the force of circum- 
stances," and that the supremacy of a single officer 
came through a desire for unity of doctrine and unity 
of discipline. In this connection he mentions that 
" St. Jerome, arguing against the growing tendency 
to exalt the diaconate at the expense of the presby- 
terate, maintains that the churches were originally 
governed by a plurality of presbyters, but that in 
course of time one was elected to preside over the 
rest as a remedy against division, lest different pres- 
byters, having different views of doctrine, should, by 
each of them drawing a portion of the community to 
himself, cause divisions in it (St. Hieron., Epist. 146 
(85), ad Evang., vol. i, p. 1082, ed Vail." * 

Mosheim also gives an interesting explanation of 
the rise of the episcopate. He says: "As the con- 
gregations of Christians became every day larger and 
larger, a proportionate gradual increase in the num- 
ber of the presbyters and ministers of necessity took 
place ; and as the rights and power of all were the 
same, it was soon found impossible, under the cir- 
cumstances of that age, when every church was left 
to the care of itself, for any thing like a general 
harmony to be maintained amongst them, or for the 
various necessities of the multitude to be regularly 
* Hatch : Early Christian Churches, pp. 98-100. 



46 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

and satisfactorily provided for, without some one to 
preside and exert a controlling influence. Such be- 
ing the case, the churches adopted the practice of 
selecting and placing at the head of the council of 
presbyters some one man of eminent wisdom and 
prudence, wdiose peculiar duty it should be to allot to 
his colleagues their several tasks, and by his advice, 
and every other mode of assistance, to prevent, as far 
as in him lay, the interests of the assembly over which 
he was thus appointed to preside from experiencing 
any kind of detriment or injury. The person thus 
advanced to the presidency was at first distinguished 
by the title of ' the angel' of his church ; but in after 
times it became customary to style him, in allusion 
to those duties which constituted the chief branch of 
his function, ' the bishop.' In what particular church 
or at what precise period this arrangement was first 
introduced remains nowhere on record." * 

" This statement respecting the origin of the order 
of bishops must, I am persuaded, obtain the assent of 
every one who knows what human nature is, and 
shall reflect on the situation of things in that early 
age. . . . That the first churches had no bishops 
may, I think, very clearly be proved from the writ- 
ings of the New Testament. . . . Neither in the Acts 
of the Apostles nor in St. Paul's epistles, although in 
both express mention is frequently made of presby- 
ters and deacons, do we find the least notice taken of 
* Mosheim, vol. i, xli, p. 169. 



The Bishopeic in the Early Church. 47 



any church having been subject to the authority or 
rule of a single man." * 

" That these bishops were, on their creation, in- 
vested with certain peculiar rights, and a degree of 
power which placed them above the presbyters, will 
not be disputed by any unprejudiced or impartial 
person. ... It is certain, however, that it would be 
forming a very erroneous judgment were we to esti- 
mate the power, the revenue, the privileges, and rights 
of the first bishops, from the rank, affluence, and au- 
thority attached to the episcopal character in the 
present day. A primitive bishop was, as it should 
seem, none other than the chief or principal minister 
of an individual church, which, at the period of 
which we are speaking, was seldom so numerous but 
that it could be assembled under one roof. . . . What- 
ever arrangements might be deemed eligible were 
proposed by him to the people for their adoption in 
a general assembly. In fine, a primitive bishop could 
neither determine nor enact any thing of himself, but 
was bound to conform to and carry into effect what- 
ever might be resolved on by the presbyters and the 
people." f 

" It was not long, however, before circumstances 
became so changed as to produce a considerable ex- 
tension and enlargement of the limits within which 
the episcopal government and authority had been at 
first confined. For the bishops who presided in the 
* Mosheira, vol. i, xli, note 1. f Ibid., vol. i, xlii. 



4S 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



cities were accustomed to send out into the neighboring 
towns and country adjacent certain of their presbyters, 
for the purpose of making converts and establishing 
churches therein ; and it being, of course, deemed but 
fair and proper that the rural or village congregations, 
which were drawn together in this way, should con- 
tinue under the' guardianship and authority of the 
prelate by whose counsel and exertion they had been 
first brought to a knowledge of Christ and his word, 
the episcopal sees gradually expanded into ecclesias- 
tical provinces of varied extent, some greater, some 
less, to which the Greeks in after times gave the de- 
nomination of dioceses. Those to whom the instruc- 
tion and management of these surrounding country 
churches were committed by the diocesan were termed 
chorepiscopi, that is, rrjg x<*>P a S eniatco-ol, ' rural bish- 
ops.' " * 

A later authority remarks that " The early history 
of the episcopal order is obscure, but it would appear 
that the first bishops were established in the chief 
cities of Christendom, and each bishop had a certain 
territorial district placed under his superintendence, 
whence the city was termed the see (sedes) of the 
bishop, and the district his parish (napoLKLa), and sub- 
sequently his diocese (dLo'ui7]oi<;). In the course of 
time the districts assigned to the first bishop became 
too populous, whereupon the clergy of each diocese, 
as the case might be, appear to have assembled and to 

* Mosheim, vol. i, xliii. 



The Bishopric in the Early Church. 49 

have subdivided the diocese, and to have selected a 
second bishop ; and so bishops and dioceses were 
multiplied, according to the wants of the churches, 
until it was thought expedient to reserve the right 
of erecting new bishoprics to provincial councils, 
and this reservation was made a rule of the Church 
by a decree of the Council of Sardica.* Meanwhile 
the bishops of the new sees had grouped themselves 
round the bishops of the more ancient sees, who ex- 
ercised over them a certain spiritual authority as 
primates, and presided in their councils ; and as some 
of the great cities in which the sees of the first bish- 
ops had been established were distinguished by the 
title of ' metropolis,' or mother-city, and were in fact 
the chief cities of civil provinces of the Roman em- 
pire, the bishops of these sees came to be distinguished 
by the title of metropolitan bishops, and exercised a 
superior authority in the councils of the Church in 
proportion to the greater importance of their respect- 
ive sees. This superior dignity of the metropolitan 
bishops over the others was formally recognized at 
the Council of Nicseaf as being in accordance with 
custom. Upon the establishment of Christianity 
as the religion of the Roman empire a coercive 
jurisdiction was ingrafted on the spiritual supe- 
riority of the metropolitan ; and the district over 
which the metropolitan exercised this jurisdiction was 
called his province, the earliest ecclesiastical provinces 

* A. D. 347. f A. D. 325. 

4 



50 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



being for the most part conterminous with the civil 
provinces of the empire. From the circumstance that 
there was no metropolitan city in western Africa, the 
term metropolitan was never adopted in the Cartha- 
ginian Church, the senior bishop of that church being 
termed the primate, and having precedence and au- 
thority as such over other bishops." * 

Thus from the simplicity of New Testament times, 
when presbyter and bishop were synonymous terms, 
as applied to the same person, though one indicated 
the order and the other the office, there was a grad- 
ual modification. After a time the presbyter presid- 
ing over other presbyters appropriated the distinctive 
title of bishop, but still he was only a presbyter-bishop. 
Then, from the innocent idea of a presiding presbyter 
or presiding elder, the presiding officer or bishop 
claimed supremacy of order and exclusive authority 
over the presbyters. The metropolitan bishop ob- 
tained jurisdiction over the other bishops in the prov- 
ince, and the tendency to centralization and the asser- 
tion of superior authority went on until the bishop in 
the greatest city of Europe and the center of the Ro- 
man empire claimed superiority over all the rest. 

At first the bishop of Rome was conceded only an 
"ideal precedence," but the bishops of Rome soon 
showed their eager desire to make this honorary su- 
premacy mean a real superiority over all other bishops. 

* Ency. Britannica. Ninth Edition, art. "Bishop," by Sir Travers 
Twiss, Q. C. 



The Bishopric in inE Early Church, 



51 



The claim was at first " promptly and emphatically 
denied in all parts of the world," * yet gradually the 
persistent claim, aided by all kinds of weapons and 
furthered by such men as Leo I. (440-461), Gregory I. 
(590-604), and ultimately by Hildebrand, or Greg- 
ory VII. (1073), made its way until there was not 
only the assertion of the superiority of the pope of 
Rome over other bishops, but also the assertion of " a 
theocratic rule of the pope over all the nations of the 
world." 

Thus we see how evil may gradually grow out of 
that which at first seemed a harmless expedient or 
what probably appeared to be a necessary prudential 
arrangement. Such are the possibilities of human 
government and human nature. 

* McClintock & Strong's Bib. and Tlieol. Cyclopcedia, art. " Papacy." 



52 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



CHAPTER II. 

EPISCOPACY IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

IN studying the episcopacy of the Church of En- 
gland, it is not necessary for our present purpose 
to go back farther than the time of the Reformation. 

Prior to the Protestant Reformation the English 
Church, like all Churches under papal domination, 
had an episcopal form of government. After the 
Reformation, however, the Churches on the Con- 
tinent of Europe discarded episcopacy, while it was 
retained by the Protestant Reformed Church of 
England. 

The explanation of the difference in this particular 
is not difficult. The Protestants on the Continent, 
though springing from an episcopal Church, aban- 
doned the organization for the simple reason that the 
hierarchy sided with the papacy. In England, on 
the contrary, Protestantism continued to be episcopal 
because the bishops generally were in harmony with 
King Henry Till, in his opposition to the pope. 
Thus it happened that Continental Protestantism 
became presbyterian and English Protestantism re- 
mained episcopal.* 

* Butler's Ecclesiastical History, p. 39. Fisher's History of Refor- 
mation, p. 332. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 53 



The question now arises as to how the English 
Protestant Reformed Church regarded its episcopacy. 
Did the English reformers understand that bishops 
were in a clerical order distinct from and superior to 
that of presbyters ? Did they maintain that episco- 
pacy was by divine right? Did they teach that there 
could be no true Christian Church without episcopal 
government? Did they hold that episcopal ordina- 
tion was the only valid ministerial ordination ? 

In 1537, shortly after the separation of the An- 
glican Church from Rome, there was published by 
the authority of the king, the Institution of a Chris- 
tian Man. As it was prepared mainly by the bish- 
ops it was also called the Bishops'' Booh. Referring 
to the various clerical orders in the Church of Rome, 
it declares : " The truth is, that in the New Testa- 
ment there is no mention made of any degrees or dis- 
tinctions in orders, but only of deacons or ministers, 
and of priests or bishops." * This is a clear state- 
ment that they believed that presbyters (or priests) 
and bishops were the same order. 

In 1543, by order of the king, the Institution 
was revised and issued under the title of A Neces- 
sary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man. 
It says : " Of these two orders only, that is to say, 
priests and deacons, Scripture maketh express men- 
tion." 

* Burnet's History of Reformation, \\ t Collection of Records, Ad- 
denda v. 



54 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Referring to the former " paper concerning orders 
and ecclesiastical functions," Bishop Burnet remarks : 
" Both in this writing and in the Necessary Erudition 
of a Christian Man, bishops and priests are spoken 
of as one and the same office. In the ancient Church 
they knew none of these subtleties which were found 
out in the latter ages." * 

In 1540 King Henry submitted a number of ques- 
tions, drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer, to the 
bishops and learned divines, who were to write their 
answers. The tenth query involved the question of 
the parity of bishops and priests, or presbyters, and 
was as follows : " Whether bishops or priests were 
first, and if the priests were first, then the priest made 
the bishop?" To this the Archbishop of Canterbury 
replied that " the bishops and priests at one time 
were not two things, but both one office in the be- 
ginning of Christ's religion ; " and the Archbishop of 
York said : " The name of a bishop is not properly 
a name of order, but a name of office, signifying an 
overseer." f 

Some of the answers were indefinite, and some may 
be accepted as antagonistic, but these replies of the 
two archbishops represent the views of the English re- 
formers. They held that there were only two clerical 
orders, namely, priests and deacons, and that bishops 
and priests were not different orders, but the same 

* Burnet's History of Reformation, Addenda to Part I. 
f Ibid., Records, xxv. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 55 



order, the name bishop not indicating an order, but 
an office. 

The eleventh question was, " Whether a bishop 
hath authority to make a priest by the Scripture, or 
no ? And whether any other but only a bishop may 
make a priest?" To this the Archbishop of York 
replied : " That any other than bishops or priests 
may make a priest, we neither find in Scripture 
nor out of the Scripture," * which is a positive 
affirmation that priests or presbyters may make an 
elder, and that consequently a presbyter made by 
presbyters would have a valid ministry. In other 
words, it is an admission of the equality of bishops 
and presbyters in the matter of ordination, and hence 
as to their orders. 

The twelfth question was, " Whether in the New 
Testament be required any consecration of bishops or 
priests, or only appointing to the office be sufficient ? " 
To this Craniner replied : " In the New Testament 
he that is appointed to be a bishop or priest needeth 
no consecration by the Scriptures, for election or ap- 
pointing thereto is sufficient." f 

This most assuredly was any thing but a high view 
of any virtue in the act of consecration, and a positive 
denial of any need of consecration. As to the bish- 
opric, it is beyond dispute that he regarded it not as 
a clerical order but as an office, which was held only 
at the pleasure of the power that could fill the office. 
* Burnet's History of Reformation, Records, xxv. f Ibid. 



56 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Hence, on the death of Henry, Cranmer considered 
that he ceased to be Archbishop of Canterbury until 
he was re-appointed by the new sovereign. 

We now turn to consider the relations existing 
between the episcopal Church of England and the 
non-episcopal Reformed Churches on the continent. 
Remembering the declarations of the representa- 
tives of the Protestant Reformed Church of England, 
which have been quoted, there could be only one 
natural result, namely, a feeling of fraternity and 
a recognition of equality. 

Holding, as the Anglican Church did, that presby- 
ters and bishops were the same order, and that the 
bishopric was an office and not an order, and that 
presbyters as well as bishops could ordain, they could 
not logically deny the legality of the presbyterial 
ordination and government of the non-episcopal 
Reformed Churches. This was to admit that an 
episcopal government was not necessary for a true 
church, and that episcopal ordination was not neces- 
sary for a valid ministry; The facts show that in 
practice they admitted the validity of presbyterian 
orders, and that they saw nothing in their episcopal 
organization to prevent the closest fraternal relations 
with the Protestant Reformed Churches on the Con- 
tinent which had only presbyterial ordination. 

Dr. Campbell, Archbishop of Canterbury, in one of 
his- addresses "at his primary visitation" in 1872, 
admitted this close relationship. He said : " Every 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 57 



one knows that we of the Church of England, in the 
early times of our history, after the .Reformation, 
were much more connected with the non-episcopal 
than with the episcopal communions." * 

This admission, of one so thoroughly informed as 
England's primate, has the force of strong corrob- 
orative proof. The intimate character of the frater- 
nal relations existing between the Anglican Episcopal 
Church and the Continental Presbyterian Churches 
appears from many facts, a few of which may be re- 
cited. Thus Henry VIII. sent two invitations urging 
Melanchthon to visit England, and it appears that, 
subsequently, Melanchthon was offered the chair of 
divinity at Cambridge. Thomas Cromwell wanted to 
bring about an alliance of all Protestantism, and 
Cranmer tried to secure a council " of wise and godly 
men " to compare their opinions, and to come to some 
agreement, and for this purpose he invited Melanch- 
thon, Calvin, and Bullinger to co-operate. He also 
invited Continental reformers to come to England 
and assist in the English Reformation. Among those 
who came were Martyr the Florentine, and Bucer the 
Reformed minister of Strasburg. Martyr was made 
a canon, and given the professorship of divinity at 
Oxford, and Bucer was made divinity professor at 
Cambridge. 

This fraternal recognition of the non-episcopal 

* Archbishop Campbell's Present Position of the Church of England, 
London, 1872, p. 90. 



58 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



bodies carries with it conclusive proof that the 
Anglican Church did not hold that a presbyterian 
Church was not a true Church, or that an episcopal 
form of government and an episcopal ordination 
were necessary to make a valid ministry. 

When the English reformers came to the work of 
preparing their liturgies they used not only the an- 
cient offices of the English Church, but also the lit- 
urgies of the foreign Reformed Churches, and were 
assisted in the construction of the Anglican litur- 
gies by ministers from the Reformed Churches on 
the Continent. 

When, in 1552, they prepared their Articles of 
Religion, they were again indebted to the foreign 
Reformed Churches. Peter Martyr had an important 
part in this task, as he also had in the construction of 
the Second Book of Common Prayer, and, as a basis 
of action by the commission, Cranmer submitted thir- 
teen articles made up chiefly from the Augsburg 
Confession. Thus the forty-two articles which were 
adopted were based upon the Augsburg Confession, 
just as the Anglican Prayer-Book was indebted to 
the liturgies of the Continental Reformed Churches. 
In this fact there was a tacit recognition of Churches 
which were without episcopal government, but the 
English reformers at this time went further, and did 
not hesitate to refer to the non-episcopal Protestant 
bodies on the Continent as true Churches. 

There was nothing in the forty-two articles, or the 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 59 



thirty-nine articles, as they afterward became, which 
affirmed the absolute necessity of episcopal govern- 
ment, or any thing which denied the validity of non- 
episcopal bodies. On the contrary, it is evident from 
the circumstances, from the phraseology, and from 
the testimony of history, that they were expressly 
intended to acknowledge the Protestant Reformed 
Churches, which were not episcopal. 

We turn to the forty-two articles to see if there is 
any thing that declares the invalidity of non-episcopal 
churches. The twentieth article (now the nine- 
teenth), on the Church, says : 

" The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of 
faithful men, in which the pure word of God is 
preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered ac- 
cording to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that 
of necessity are requisite to the same," 

In this definition of a Christian Church there is 
no proclamation or suggestion of episcopal govern- 
ment as a requisite, or, indeed, of the necessity of any 
particular form of polity, but its very wording leads 
to the inference that, though forms vary, there might 
be in all the true visible Church. Its definition of 
"the visible Church of Christ" is "a congregation 
of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is 
preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered." 
Even in regard to preaching and the administration 
of the sacraments, it seems to suggest that there may 
be differences, for all that is required is that these 



60 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



shall be done " in all those things that of necessity 
are requisite to the same ; " but it does not pre- 
sume to declare in detail what things are necessary. 
This article, therefore, gave them latitude to recog- 
nize any Protestant body, no matter what its form of 
government might be, whether Episcopal, Presby- 
terian, or Congregational ; and, from the relations 
existing between the English reformers and the 
Continental reformers, the legitimate inference is 
that this article was so constructed for the express 
purpose of covering the other Protestant Reformed 
Churches, which were not episcopal. 

The twenty-fourth article (now the twenty-third), 
denning the ministry, says : 

" It is not lawful for any man to take upon him 
the office of public preaching, or ministering the 
sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully 
called and sent to execute the same. And those we 
ought to judge lawfully called and sent which be 
chosen and called to this work by men who have 
public authority given unto them in the congre- 
gation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's 
vineyard." 

There is not a single word in this article declaring 
the necessity of apostolic succession through bish- 
ops or others, or of ordination by bishops as distinct 
from presbyters, or of the necessity of three minis- 
terial orders. 

Whatever the Church of England of that day pre- 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 61 



ferred for itself, when it came to define a valid min- 
istry for the Christian Churches in general, it did 
not specify how many ministerial orders there should 
be, or by what particular form or method the 
minister should be set apart for his work. The arti- 
cle merely declares that a minister is one who is 
"lawfully called" to the work of "preaching, or 
ministering the sacraments," and that those are " law- 
fully called and sent " " which be chosen and called 
to this work by men who have public authority given 
unto them in the congregation to call and send minis- 
ters into the Lord's vineyard." This is so broad that 
it recognizes those called and set apart according to 
the law and form of any church, or, where the church 
is congregational, by the independent congregation ; 
and the article distinctly says, in the phrase " we 
ought," that the Church of England " ought to judge " 
such persons as " lawfully called and sent," or, in 
other words, as legitimate Christian ministers. In- 
deed, it was the evident intention of the makers of 
this article to recognize the ministry of those Prot- 
estant Reformed Churches which were without epis- 
copal government. So Bishop Burnet says : " The 
general words in which this part of the article is 
framed seem to have been designed on purpose not to 
exclude them." * 

That the English reformers intended to recognize 
diversities of government and usage in the true 
* Burnet on the XXXIX Articles. See on Art. XXIII. 



G2 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Church may be inferred from the thirty- third article 
(now the thirty-fourth). It says : 

" It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies 
be in all places one, or utterly like ; for at all times 
they have been divers, and may be changed according 
to the diversity of countries, times, and men's man- 
ners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word." 

So that though the Book of Common Prayer and 
the various rites and ceremonies of the Anglican 
Church were " by all faithful members of the Church 
of England, but chiefly of the ministers of the word, 
with all thankfulness and readiness of mind, to be 
received, approved, and commended to the people of 
God " (Article XXXV of the forty-two articles), yet 
there is not the slightest disposition manifested to 
expect them to be received by other churches, or the 
faintest intimation that churches not conforming to 
them are not true churches ; but, on the contrary, that 
a Christian body may be a true church, though differ- 
ing in " traditions and ceremonies, 1 ' and Bishop Bur- 
net, commenting on the articles, declares " that not 
only those who penned the articles, but the body of 
this Church for above half an age after, did, not- 
withstanding these irregularities, acknowledge the 
foreign churches so constituted to be true churches as 
to all the essentials of a church, though they had been 
irregularly formed and continued still to be in an im- 
perfect state." * 

* Burnet on the XXXIX Articles. See on Art. XXIII. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 63 



It is true that the preface to the Ordinal of 1550 
speaks of the orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, 
but this was an inheritance from the other days. We 
have seen how it happened that the episcopal form 
was retained in England, though it was discarded on 
the Continent, so that the Church in England con- 
tinued to be episcopal while the Protestant Church on 
the Continent became presbyterial. Under the cir- 
cumstances it was quite natural that, having the epis- 
copal form, they would provide for its perpetuity. 

Further, in the light of other declarations, such as 
those which have been quoted, it must appear that the 
word order in reference to bishops must have been 
used in a qualified sense, for it was expressly declared, 
not only by individuals in authority, but also by offi- 
cial and authoritative statements, that bishops and 
priests were the same order, and that bishop was not 
indicative of order but of office. 

Goode, referring to the preface, says : " The re- 
mark there made as to the three orders of the minis- 
try having existed from the times of the apostles is 
simply the statement of a fact, which does not touch 
the question of the validity of the orders of the for- 
eign non-episcopal churches." * 

To declare that there have been the orders of 
bishops, priests, and deacons, since the times of the 

* The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, by William Goode, M.A., 
F.S.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge, Rector of All Hallows the 
Great and Less, London. London, 1855, pp. 290, 291. 



6i The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

apostles is not saying that there must be three orders, 
or that the body which does not have them is not a 
Christian Church. 

It does not necessarily imply that a non-episcopal 
government is not valid, but may be looked upon 
merely as a statement of what was presumed to be 
an historical fact, rather than an assertion of the ille- 
gality of a ministry which is without three orders. 
One might indeed believe that there have been 
three orders simply as a supposed fact of history, and 
yet disbelieve in their absolute necessity. 

The preface is not a declaration of the invalidity of 
non-episcopal orders, and, as Goode says, " It is not 
pretended that the language itself contains any such 
declaration. ... It has been shown a^ain and a«;ain 
that no such notion could by any possibility have been 
in the minds of the framers. . . . The first part is the 
simple statement of a fact without intent on the part 
of the authors to pass upon other forms of gov- 
ernment, but as giving a sufficient warrant for their 
own."* 

So Dr. Blakeney says: "It does not follow, be- 
cause there have been three orders in the Church 
from the apostles' time, that no ordination is valid 
unless it is episcopal." f 

* G-oode on Orders. New York, pp. 17, 18. 

f The Boole of Common Prayer in its History and Interpretation, by 
Rev. R. P. Blakeney, D.D., LL.D., Incumbent of Christ Church, 
Claughton. Third Ed., Revised and Enlarged, Loudon, 1870, p. 628. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 65 



Dr. Blakeney, in another place, declares that, " In 
fact, no one of the Church of England in those days 
thought of calling into question the validity of the 
orders and sacraments of the Reformed Churches." * 

Dr. Butler, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in 
the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in Philadelphia, having carefully studied 
"the testimonies of the reformers, public and pri- 
vate," says : " The result of the inquiry is a perfect 
demonstration that the dogma of later times, which 
makes episcopacy necessary to the existence of the 
Church and the administration of sacraments, was 
not only not held by them, but had not even been 
broached among them." f 

There was nothing in all this that even intimated 
the existence of episcopacy as of divine authority, or 
the necessity of episcopal government in a true church, 
or of episcopal ordination for a valid ministry. 

Notwithstanding this Preface to the Ordinal, the 
Anglican Church, nevertheless, affiliated with the non- 
episcopal churches, and by word and act recognized 
them as true churches, having as valid a ministry as 
their own, though the English Church had episcopal 
ordination, while that which the Continental Protes- 
tant Churches had was presbyterial. 

* Booh of Common Prayer in its History and Interpretation, by 
Kev. R. P. Blakeney, D.D., LL.D., Incumbent of Christ Church, 
Claughton. Third Edition, London, 1870, p. 630. 

f Butler, Com. Prayer Interpreted. 2nd Ed., Washington, note, p. 379. 



66 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Nothing more clearly embodies the evidence of the 
attitude of the Anglican Church than the indisputable 
fact that ministers who had only presbyterial ordina- 
tion were admitted into the ministry of the Church 
of England without re-ordination, and thus was prac- 
tically recognized the validity of ordination by pres- 
byters and the equality of such ordination with that 
received from bishops. 

In Elizabeth's time Parliament enacted " That the 
ordination of foreign Churches should be held valid," 
and Keble, High Churchman though he was, admits, 
in his preface to Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, that 
"Nearly up to the time when Hooker wrote (which 
was about the close of the sixteenth century), numbers 
had been admitted to the ministry of the Church of 
England with no better than the presbyterial ordina- 
tion ; and it appears . . . that such was the con- 
struction not uncommonly put upon the statute of 
the thirteenth of Elizabeth, permitting those who had 
received orders in any other form than that of the 
English Service Book, on giving certain securities, to 
exercise their calling in England." 

Nothing could show more clearly that the Church 
of England in that day did not believe in a divine 
right episcopacy, or that episcopacy was necessary for 
a true church or a valid ministry. 

Referring to those who defended episcopacy dur- 
ing Elizabeth's day, Keble confesses that they made 
no exclusive claims for episcopacy. He says : " It is 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 67 



enough, with them, to show that the government by 
archbishops and bishops is ancient and allowable ; 
they never venture to urge its exclusive claim, or to 
connect the succession with the validity of the holy 
sacraments." 

Referring to changes made in the Liturgy in King 
Edward's time, he remarks that, "It should seem 
that those who were responsible for those omissions 
must have felt themselves precluded ever after from 
urging the necessity of episcopacy, or of any thing 
else, on the grounds of uniform church tradition." * 

Bishop Jewel, in 1562, published his apology for 
the Anglican Church. In it he said : " But what 
meant M. Harding to come in here with the differ- 
ence between priests and bishops ? Thinketh he that 
priests and bishops hold only by tradition ? Or is it 
so horrible a heresy as he maketh it, to say that by 
the Scriptures of God a bishop and a priest are all 
one 1 Or knoweth lie how far and unto whom he 
reacheth the name of heretic ? Verily Chrysostom 
saith, ' Inter episcopum et presbeterum interest fere 
nihil] ' Between a bishop and a priest in a manner 
there is no difference ' (in 1 Tim., hom. ii). S. Hie- 
rome saith, somewhat in a rougher sort, 'Audio, quen- 
dam in tantam eripuisse vecordiam, ut diaconus 
presbyteris, id est episcopis, anteferret : cum apos- 
tolus prespicue doceat, eosdem esse presbyteros, quos 
episcoposj ' I hear say, there is one becomes so peevish 

* Keble's Pref. to Hooker's Eccl. Polity. 



68 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



that he setteth deacons before priests, that is to say, 
bishops ; whereas, the apostle plainly teacheth us 
that priests and bishops be all one ' (Ad Evagr.). 
S. Augustine also saith, ' Quid est episcopus nisi pri- 
mus presbyter, hoc est, summus sacerdosj ' What is a 
bishop but the first priest ; that is to say, the highest 
priest? 1 (In Quaest. K et Y. Test., q. 101.) So saith 
S. Ambrose, 'Episcopi et presbyteri una ordinatio est; 
uterque, enim, sacerdos est, sed episcopus primus est] 
' There is but one consecration {ordinatio) of priest 
and bishop ; for both of them are priests, but the 
bishop is the first ' (In 1 Tim., c. 3). All these, and 
other more holy fathers, together with St. Paul the 
apostle, for thus saying, by M. Harding's advice, 
must be holden for heretics." * 

This prelate, therefore, held that " bishop and priest 
are all one," only that the bishop was the first priest, 
and, as they were the same order, it was fitting there 
should be " but one ordination of priest and bishop ; 
for both of them are priests," that is to say presbyters. 
This is a clear admission of the parity of bishops and 
presbyters as to clerical order. Harding had charged 
that the Church of England had derived its orders 
from apostate bishops. To this Bishop Jewel replied 
as follows : . 

" Neither doth the Church of England this day 
depend of them whom you often call apostates, as if 
our Church were no church without them. ... If 
* Jewel's Apol., pt. 2, c, 9, div. 1. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 69 

there were not one, neither of them or of us left 
alive, yet would not, therefore, the whole Church of 
England flee to Lovaine. Tertullian saith, 6 And we, 
being laymen, are we not priests? It is written, 
Christ hath made us both a kingdom and priests unto 
God his Father. The authority of the Church and 
the honor by the assembly or council of order, 
sanctified of God, hath made a difference between the 
lay and the clergy. Where, as there is no assembly 
of ecclesiastical order, the priest being there alone 
(without the company of other priests), doth both min- 
ister the oblation, and also baptize. Yea, and be there 
but three together, and though they be laymen, yet 
is there a church. For every man liveth of his own 
faith.' . . . Whosoever is a member of Christ's body, 
whosoever is a child of the Church, whosoever is bap- 
tized in Christ and beareth his name, is fully invested 
with this priesthood (that is, as he explains it in the 
context, the ' inward priesthood '), and therefore 
may justly be called a priest. And wheresoever there 
be three such together, as Tertullian saith, yea, 
though they be only laymen, yet have they a 
church." * 

So Jewel held not only that apostolical succession 
was not necessary, but also that episcopal succession 
and ordination were not necessary to constitute a true 
church. He went even further, and, accepting Ter- 
tullian's idea, maintained that even laymen may form 
* Jewel's Def. of Apol., pt. 2, c. 5, div. 1, Works, ed. 1611, p. 129. 



TO 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



a church and set in motion a valid ecclesiastical or- 
ganization with all the functions of a genuine Chris- 
tian Church. In this connection it should be remem- 
bered that Bishop Jewel's Apology was considered to 
be the standard of the doctrine of the Anglican Church 
on this subject, and, on this account, was ordered to be 
suspended by a chain in all the churches, and to be 
publicly read as a standard of theological instruc- 
tion. 

In 1563, Dr. Pilkington, then Bishop of Dur- 
ham, said : " God's commission and commandment is 
like and indifferent to all, priest, bishop, archbishop, 
prelate, by what name soever he be called," thus 
putting them on a level. That he understood elders 
and bishops to be the same order is evident from his 
reference to Paul's address to the elders of Epkesns 
and epistles to the Philippians. Thus he remarked : 
" He writes also to the bishops of Philippos, mean- 
ing the ministers ; " and then, alluding to St. Jerome, 
he observes that " St. Jerome, in his commentary 
on the first chapter, Ad. Tit., says that 1 a bishop 
and a priest is all one,' ... A bishop is a name of 
office, labor, and pains." * 

Thomas Cartwright, Professor of Divinity at Cam- 
bridge, went so far, about 1570, as to contend that 
the Scriptures ordained the presbyterian system of 
church polity, and that prelacy was, therefore, unlaw- 
ful. Archbishop Whitgift, who succeeded to the pri- 

* Confut of an Addition, Works, Ed., Tark Soc, pp. 493, 494. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 71 

macy in 1583, answered such views in 1571. His ar- 
gument was that no ecclesiastical government was 
ordained in the New Testament, but that a church 
was free to organize itself according to circumstances. 
He said : " I confess that in a church collected together 
in one place, and at liberty, government is necessary 
in the second kind of necessity ; but that any one 
kind of government is so necessary that without it 
the church cannot be saved, or that it may not be 
altered into some other kind thought to be more ex- 
pedient, I utterly deny, and the reasons that move me 
so to do be these. The first is, because I find no one 
certain and perfect kind of government prescribed or 
commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ, 
which no doubt should have been done, if it had been 
a matter necessary unto the salvation of the Church. 
Secondly, because the essential notes of the Church be 
these only; the true preaching of the word of God, 
and the right administration of the sacraments ; for 
(as Master Calvin saith in his book against the Ana- 
baptists) : ' This honor is meet to be given to the 
word of God, and to his sacraments., that wheresoever 
we see the word of God truly preached, and God ac- 
cording to the same truly worshiped, and the sacra- 
ments without superstition administered, there we 
may without all controversy conclude the Church of 
God to be ; ' and a little after : £ So much we must 
esteem the word of God and his sacraments, that 
wheresoever we find them to be, there we may cer- 



72 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



tainly know the Church of God to be, although in 
the common life of men many faults and errors be 
found.' The same is the opinion of other godly and 
learned writers and the judgment of the Reformed 
Churches, as appeareth by their confessions. So that 
notwithstanding government, or some kind of gov- 
ernment, may be a part of the Church, touching the 
outward form and perfection of it, yet is it not such a 
part of the essence and being, but that it may be the 
Church of Christ without this or that kind of govern- 
ment, and therefore the kind of government of the 
Church is not necessary unto salvation." * 

Again Whitgift says : " I deny that the Scriptures 
do . . . set down any one certain form and kind of 
government of the Church to be perpetual for all 
times, persons, and places without alteration." f Ac- 
cording to this representative of the Church of 
England and defender of episcopacy, an episcopal 
form of government was not necessary to constitute 
a true church, but each body was free to decide as 
to what form of Church government it would have, 
and free also to alter that government at pleasure, 
and consequently a presbyterial form was just as valid 
as the episcopal, and presbyterial ordination was just 
as valid as ordination by bishops. He agreed with 
Calvin and harmonized with the articles of his own 
Church, that " wheresoever we see the word of God 
truly preached, and God according to the same truly 

*De/. of Answ. to Adm., 1574, p. 81. f Ibid. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 73 

worshiped, and the sacraments without superstition 
administered, there we may conclude the Church 
of God to be," no matter what may be the nature 
of the polity of the Church. This was. the very op- 
posite to insisting on the necessity of ordination by 
bishops, who had the " grace of orders " in unbroken 
succession from the apostles. 

Many other authorities might be cited to demon- 
strate that the early " Protestant Reformed " Church 
of England did not entertain High Church notions as 
to episcopacy. With the English reformers, though it 
seemed convenient to retain the episcopal form, they 
did not hold that it was essential and that all other 
forms were unlawful, or that there was no valid min- 
istry without episcopal ordination by bishops of un- 
broken lineal descent from Christ's apostles, but that 
bishops and presbyters were the same clerical order, 
that a presbyterial government was legal, and that pres- 
byterial ordination was just as valid as the episcopal. 

But about the close of Queen Elizabeth's time 
counter opinions began to assert themselves very 
strongly. The doctrine of " the divine right, as it is 
called, or absolute indispensability of episcopacy," 
began then to be advanced. As Hallam remarks, it is 
u a doctrine of which the first traces, as I apprehend, 
are found about the end of Elizabeth's reign." * 

Bacon, in his Advertisement concerning Contro- 

* Hallam, Const. Hist, of England, chap, vii, p. 387, Widdleton's 
Arner. Ed. 



74 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

versies of the Church of England, which was written 
just at the close of Elizabeth's reign, remarks that 
" Some indiscreet persons have been bold in open 
preaching to use dishonorable and derogatory speech 
and censure of the churches abroad ; and that so far, 
as some of our men, as I have heard, ordained in for- 
eign parts, have been pronounced to be no lawful 
ministers. Thus we see the beginnings were modest, 
but the extremes were violent." f 

It is evident from this observation of Bacon that 
the prevailing view of the Anglican Church at that 
day was in harmony with the view held by the 
English reformers. The Church still recognized the 
validity of presbyterial ordination, and the contrary 
view was exceptional and held only by a few " in- 
discreet persons," in regard to whom Bacon expresses 
surprise. 

Our limits will not permit a detailed statement of the 
causes leading to this new development. It may be 
explained partly by certain circumstances, and partly 
by well-known tendencies in human nature. 

The Puritans were becoming quite strong and 
aggressive, and those who were devoted to episcopa- 
lianism were to some extent thrown upon the defen- 
sive. In defending episcopal government the ex- 
treme episcopalians would find it a very convenient 
and decisive method in the discussion if they could 
affirm and maintain episcopacy to be by divine au- 
* Bacon's Works, Montague's Ed., vii, 48. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 75 



thority. Whether this was the motive or not it is 
certain that they resorted to that method, though at 
first there were only a few who were so bold ; but 
from this small beginning there was a great growth, 
and the consequences were very disastrous. 

It would be sufficient, however, to account for the 
new view, that bishops were a higher order than the 
presbyters, and that only episcopal government and 
ordination were valid, by a tendency in human nature 
to reverence that which has come down through the 
course of many ages. These extreme episcopalians 
were born under a system which ran far back into the 
dim past of many centuries, and so had the sanction 
of great antiquity ; and it was a natural thing to imag- 
ine that the easiest way to account for it was to sup- 
pose that away back in those early days.it had divine 
sanction, and came into existence directly or indi- 
rectly through divine authority. Then they had been 
accustomed to ordination by bishops alone, and had 
learned to look upon that as the proper thing. So, by an 
easy transition, they would come to look upon it as the 
only valid form of ordination ; and, consequently, con- 
sider that ordinations by those who did not occupy the 
episcopal office must be illegitimate. Further, they 
noticed how the bishops were distinguished from the 
ordinary presbyters or priests, not only in the charac- 
ter of their special official duties, but also in many 
other ways, and it was quite natural that careless 
thinkers who were too indifferent to investigate, or 



76 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



who found it to their interest to accept tilings as they 
seemed to be, would infer that there was also a dis- 
tinction of clerical order, and that presbyters were of 
an inferior order. Doubtless many of the clergy, and 
the people were in just such a condition that when 
some bold and indiscreet leader would proclaim that 
the bishops were a higher order than the presbyters, 
and that episcopacy was by divine right, and that ev- 
ery other form of church government was contrary 
to the divine requirement, they would acquiesce; and 
especially would this be probable if they felt that the 
episcopal form to which they were attached was in 
danger. 

Bancroft, who was made Bishop of London in 1597, 
and afterward became Archbishop of Canterbury, is 
credited, or discredited, with being the first to affirm 
the notion that episcopacy was by divine right. In 
his bitter opposition to the Puritans it is said that he 
declared, in a sermon preached at St. Paul's Cross, in 
February, 15S8, that " bishops were, as an order, su- 
perior to priests ; that they governed by divine ap- 
pointment ; and that to deny these truths was to 
deny a portion of the Christian faith." * 

The sermon called forth considerable excitement, 
as strong dissent was expressed by many of the clergy 
and laity. Sir Francis Knollys, who was greatly dis- 
satisfied, wrote to the learned Dr. Raignolds, Profes- 

* McCUntock and Strong's Cyclo., art. "Bancroft; " Miller on the 
Christian Ministry. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 77 

sor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, for his 
opinion. The professor replied thus : 

" Of the two opinions which your honor mentions 
in the sermon of Dr. Bancroft, the first is that which 
asserts the superiority which the prelates among us have 
over the clergy to be a divine institution. He does 
not, indeed, assert this in express terms, but he does 
it by necessary consequence, in which he affirms the 
opinion of those that oppose that superiority to 
be an heresy, in which, in my judgment, he has 
committed an oversight ; and I believe he himself 
will acknowledge it, if duly admonished concern- 
ing it. 

« All that have labored in reforming the Church, 
for five hundred years past, have taught that all pas- 
tors, be they entitled bishops or priests, have equal 
authority and power by God's word ; as first the 
Waldenses, next Marsilius Petavinus, then Wicliffe 
and his disciples ; afterward Huss and the Hussites ; 
and last of all Luther, Calvin, Brentius, Bullinger, and 
Musculus. Among ourselves we have bishops, the 
queen's professors of divinity in our universities; 
and other learned men, as Bradford, Lambert, Jewel, 
Pilkington, Humphreys, Fulke, who all agree in this 
matter ; and so do all the divines be} r ond the sea that 
I ever read, and doubtless many more whom I never 
read. But what do I speak of particular persons? 
It is the common judgment of the Peformed Churches 
of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hun- 



78 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



gary, Poland, the Low Countries, and our own (the 
Church of England). Wherefore, since Dr. Bancroft 
will certainly never pretend that an heresy, con- 
demned by the consent of the whole Church in its 
most nourishing times, was yet accounted sound and 
Christian doctrine by all these I have mentioned, I 
hope he will acknowledge that he was mistaken when 
he asserted the superiority which bishops have among 
us over the clergy to be God's own ordinance." * 

This shows that the doctrine of the Anglican 
Church was against the asserted statement of Bancroft. 
Hallam, however, considers that, in that particular 
sermon of 1588, Bancroft u says nothing about what 
is commonly meant by the jure divino doctrine, the 
perpetual and indispensable government by bishops, 
confining himself to an assertion of the fact, and that 
in no strong terms." f 

Dr. Blakeney, on the other hand, states that " the 
Presbyterians asserted the jus divinum of presbytery; 
Bancroft was the first who met this with the jus 
divinum of episcopacy ; but Bancroft did not deny 
the validity of non-episcopal order and sacraments." % 

The false doctrine had had what Bacon called its 
" modest beginning," but it had not yet met the 

* Boyse on Episcopacy, pp. 13-19. 

f Hallam, Const. Hist, of Eng., chap, vii, p. 388, Widdle ton's Amer. 
Edition. 

\ Blakeney on Book of Common Prayer. Third Edition, London, 
1870, p. G31. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 79 

popular approval, or the assent of scholarly divines 
or of the church authorities. 

About 1594 Richard Hooker began to issue his 
great work on the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, in 
defense of the polity of the Anglican Church. This 
work may be considered as marking a transition 
period. He strongly favors and defends episcopacy, 
but holds that the Church may vary its organizations, 
and " fully concedes the validity of presbyterian ordi- 
nation." * Thus, he says : " Now, whereas hereupon 
some do infer that no ordination can stand, but only 
such as is made by bishops which have their ordina- 
tion likewise by other bishops before them, till we 
come to the very apostles of Christ themselves ; in 
which respect it was demanded by Beza at Poissie, 
" By what authority he could administer the holy 
sacraments,' etc. ... To this we answer, that there 
may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to 
allow ordination made without a bishop," etc.f 

From 1604 we may date the rise of extreme views 
of the episcopacy. Laud, in that year, in the thesis 
which he presented when he came to take his degree 
of Bachelor of Divinity at Oxford, maintained that 
there could be no true church without bishops. As 
Dr. Blakeney observes : " It was reserved for Laud to 
make the startling and novel assertion that episcopal 
regime was essential, and to raise the cry in our 

* Fisher, Hist, of Re/., p. 334. 

f Hooker, Eccl. Pol., vii, 14. See also iii, 11. 



80 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



churches, " Nullus episcopus, nulla ecclesia" " no 
bishop, no church." * 

That Laud was reproved by the University of Ox- 
ford for his declaration shows that the Church and 
its authorities did not hold or sympathize with such 
views. Further proof that the Church of England 
did not hold such extreme views of episcopacy is 
found in the fact that the fifty-fifth canon, of this 
very year, commands that " Before all sermons, lect- 
ures, and homilies, the preachers and ministers shall 
move the people to join with them in prayer " for 
the Church of Scotland ; which was a recognition of 
a presbyterian body as a true Church. 

In the year 1618 there was another recognition of 
a non-episcopal body, when the king sent a number 
of distinguished Anglican clergymen, including the 
Bishop of Llandaff, Dr. Hall, afterward Bishop of 
Norwich, and Dr. Davenant, subsequently Bishop of 
Salisbury, as delegates to the Synod of Dort, where 
the Presbyterian Church of Holland was organized. 

During the course of years, however, the injurious 
leaven had been working, and Laud, who had been 
rebuked in 1604, was in 1633 made Archbishop of 
Canterbury ; and this man who introduced into the 
Anglican Church the doctrine of apostolic succession 
had, as primate and as the devoted friend of Charles 
the First, abundant opportunity to spread his false 

* Blakeney, His. Book of Com. Prayer, Third Edition, London, 
1870, p. 631. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 81 

notion. With his elevation to the primacy new- 
vigor was given to the extreme views. His first act 
w T as to adopt more stringent rules in regard to ordi- 
nation, so as to shut out Puritan preachers and lectur- 
ers. In a little while he got the convocation to go so 
far as to affirm even that " monarchy was of divine 
right.*' Nevertheless, the legitimacy of presbyterial 
ordination and the parity of the orders of bishops and 
presbyters were still held by the Church of England. 

In 1647, Dr. Hall, Bishop of Norwich, said, in an 
address to the clergy of his diocese : " Blessed be 
God, there is no difference, in any essential point, be- 
tween the Church of England and her sister Reformed 
Churches. We unite in every article of Christian 
doctrine, without the least variation, as the full and 
absolute agreement between their public confessions 
and ours testifies. The only difference between us 
consists in our mode of constituting the external min- 
istry ; and even with respect to this point w r e are of 
one mind, because we all profess to believe that it is 
not an essential of the Church (though in the opinion 
of many it is a matter of importance to her well- 
being) ; and we all retain a respectful and friendly 
opinion of each other, not seeing any reason why so 
small a disagreement should produce any alienation 
of affection among us." * 

So that, even after Laud had become primate, it 
was held that, though the English Church was epis- 

* Bishop Hall's Irenicum, published in 1647. 

6 



82 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



copal and the other Reformed Churches were pres- 
byterial, thej did not differ " in any essential point ; " 
and even as to their difference as to the " mode of 
constituting the external ministry " the English 
Church and the others agreed that this matter was 
" not an essential of the Church," and they did not 
see "any reason why so small a disagreement should 
produce any alienation of affection." Even then the 
extreme views as to the necessity of episcopal gov- 
ernment and ordination were not accepted by the 
Anglican Church. 

Archbishop Usher, who died in 1656, preferred the 
episcopal system, but said : " I have ever declared my 
opinion to be that bishop and presbyter differ only in 
degree, and not in order ; and, consequently, that in 
places where bishops cannot be had, the ordination 
by presbyters standeth valid." Alluding to the Re- 
formed Churches on the Continent which had a 
presbyterial government, he further remarked that 
" For the testifying my communion with these 
churches (which I do love and honor as true members 
of the Church universal), I do profess that, with 
like affection, I should receive the blessed sacrament 
at the hands of the Dutch ministers, if I were in 
Holland, as I should clo at the hands of the French 
minister if I were in Charentone."* 

When Charles L, in the Isle of Wight, asked the 

* Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh, etc., by N. Bernard, 
Loudon, 1657, 8vo pp. 125-127. 



Episcopacy in the Church of England. 83 



learned archbishop whether he found in antiquity 
that " presbyters alone did ordain," replied " Yes, and 
that he could show his majesty more, even where 
presbyters alone successively ordained bishops, and 
brought as an instance of this the presbyters of 
Alexandria choosing and making their own bishops 
from the days of Mark till Heraclas and Dionysins." . 

It was on this theory of the parity of the order of 
bishops and presbyter that Archbishop Usher pro- 
posed a scheme of moderate episcopacy " wherein the 
bishop, reduced to a sort of president of his college 
of presbyters, and differing from them only in rank, 
not in order (gradu, non ordine), should act, whether 
in ordination or jurisdiction, by their concurrence." * 

Bishop Stillingneet published his Irenicum about 
1659. The object of the book was " to moderate the 
pretensions of the Anglican party, to which the 
author belonged," and to show that no form of 
Church government is prescribed in the sacred Script- 
ures. Toward the close of his discussion he remarks : 
" It is acknowledged by the stoutest champions for 
episcopacy, before these late unhappy divisions, that 
ordination performed by presbyters in cases of neces- 
sity is valid ; which I have already shown doth evi- 
dently prove that episcopal government is not founded 
upon any unalterable divine right." f Such were the 
views of the Church of England from the Eeforma- 

*Hallam, Const. Hist, of Eng., vol. ii, chap, ix, p. 116. 
•j- Slillingfleet's Irenicum, part ii, chap, viii, sec. 7. 



84 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



tion down to 1661, when the Act of Uniformity of 
Charles II. was passed. It was then that the words, 
" or hath had episcopal consecration or ordination," 
were added to the preface to the Ordination Service, 
so as to make that necessary for one to be a lawful 
minister in the Church of England ; but even this, it 
is claimed, was not intended to deny the validity of 
other Protestant Churches, for the very next section 
recognizes " the foreign Keformed Churches." 

That down to this date the Anglican Church did 
not hold that episcopal government was essential to a 
true Church, that ordination by bishops was essen- 
tial to a valid ministry, or that bishops were superior 
in order to presbyters, is practically demonstrated by 
the fact that the Church of England down to this time 
admitted into its ministry without re-ordination those 
who had received only presbyterial ordination. 

Bishop Burnet says that " Those who came to 
England from the foreign churches had not been re- 
quired to be ordained among us ; but now (referring 
to the Act of 1661) all that had not episcopal ordina- 
tion were made incapable of holding any ecclesiasti- 
cal benefice." * 

So Bishop Fleetwood declares that this was " cer- 
tainly her practice during the reigns of King James 
and King Charles I. and to the year 1661. We had 
many ministers from Scotland, from France, and 
from the Low Countries, who were ordained by pres- 
* Burnet's History of Ms Own Times, vol. i, p. 183. 



Episcopacy in the Chuech of England. 85 



byters only, and not bishops, and they were instituted 
into benefices with cure, . . . and yet were never 
re-ordained, but only subscribed the articles." With 
this date began the triumph of extreme episcopal 
views. They had been working slowly, but steadily 
and persistently. From the idea of the English 
reformers that bishops and presbyters did not differ 
in order, the popular view gradually changed until 
the notion that bishops were of a higher order than 
presbyters generally prevailed. At first episcopacy 
was looked upon as not necessary to a true Church, 
though useful as an expedient, but at last the idea 
that episcopal government was of divine right and 
that there could be no true church without it became 
the prevalent view. From the liberal thought that 
non-episcopal churches were legitimate, and that pres- 
byterial ordinations were valid, they passed to the 
narrower conception that no one could exercise cleri- 
cal function without ordination by a bishop. From 
fraternal recognition of and affiliation with non-epis- 
copal churches there was a change to an exclusive- 
ness in marked contrast with the action of those who 
led in the Reformation in England and those who 
subsequently, and for generations, guided the affairs 
of the Church. 

Such is the weakness of human nature, and such is 
the power of error. The false view, though uttered 
but occasionally and by a few at first, may at last be 
accepted as the truth by the many. 



86 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



CHAPTER III. 

WESLEY'S VIEWS ON EPISCOPACY, ORDINATION, AND 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 

THE Rev. John Wesley, M.A., a graduate of Ox- 
ford University and Fellow of Lincoln College, 
Oxford, has the honor of being the founder of Meth- 
odism, which, under various forms, has found its way 
around the world. 

The son of a learned clergyman of the Established 
Church, and educated at Christ Church, Oxford, John 
Wesley in due time also became a clergyman of the 
Church of England. Convinced that the people of 
England needed something more than the regular 
clergy and the church services were doing for them, 
he resorted to other methods for the purpose of 
spreading scriptural holiness throughout the land, and, 
in course of time, formed numerous Methodist socie- 
ties in Great Britain, and lived to see the time when 
his preachers penetrated the wilds of America and 
organized many Methodist societies beyond the At- 
lantic Ocean. 

While Wesley's views will not be deemed binding 
upon his followers throughout the course of genera- 
tions, yet, as the founder of Methodism, which has 
assumed various ecclesiastical forms, his opinions will 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 87 

have value for purposes of interpretation or explana- 
tion in any historical study of Methodist polity. 

Educated as he had been in a very churchly univer- 
sity, and reared amid extreme churchly influences, 
Wesley began his ministry as a High Churchman. 
He was, as he afterward confessed, " above measure 
zealous for all her rules and orders.' 1 * Referring to 
himself and his brother, the Rev. Charles Wesley, 
who was associated with him, he also admits the influ- 
ence of " that poisonous mysticism with which " they 
" were both not a little tainted before " they " went to 
America," which was in 1735. f 

But, though at the beginning he was a High 
Churchman by inheritance and training, he gradually 
corrected and modified his views, until at last he be- 
came extremely liberal in his opinions. 

At first he thought it very improper to preach to 
people anywhere excepting in an ecclesiastical edifice 
which had been formally consecrated, but after a little 
while he deemed it right to preach the gospel wher- 
ever he could get the people to hear. 

He thus explains how this change was brought 
about : " Some years since two or three clergymen of 
the Church of England, who were above measure zeal- 
ous for all her rules and orders, were convinced that 
religion is not an external thing, but ' righteousness, 
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost ; ' and that this 

* Wesley's Works, Letter to a Friend, Araer. Ed., vol. vii, p. 299. 
f Wesley's Journal, Dec. 10, 1788. 



88 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



righteousness, and peace, and joy are given only to 
those who are justified by faith. As soon as they 
were convinced of these great truths, they preached 
them, and multitudes nocked to hear. For these rea- 
sons, and no others, real or pretended (for as yet they 
were strictly regular), because they preached such 
doctrine, and because such multitudes followed them, 
they were forbid to preach in the churches. Not 
daring to .be silent, they preached elsewhere, in a 
school, by a river-side, or upon a mountain, and more 
and more sinners forsook their sins and were filled 
with peace and joy in believing."* 

Even then he continued to be very extreme in his 
views of church government. He believed in apos- 
tolic succession, the divine right of episcopacy, the 
doctrine that bishops were of a higher order than 
presbyters, and the necessity of episcopal ordination 
for a valid ministry. 

At first he would not tolerate preaching by any 
one who was not a regularly ordained clergyman of 
the Church of England, but the pressing needs of his 
growing work, and the ability and success of one or 
two unordained men, compelled him to acknowledge 
that even a man who had not been regularly ordained, 
according to established ecclesiastical forms, might be 
called of God to preach. The logic of results influ- 
enced his mind, which was becoming more and more 
practical every day. 

* Wesley's Works, Letter to a Friend, Amer. Ed., vol. vii, p. 299. 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 89 

In a few years he had a large number of lay preach- 
ers, who voluntarily came to him and who obeyed 
him as unquestioningly as soldiers would their general. 
His chapels in a little while dotted England almost 
every-where. The growing demands of his work 
caused him to begin and gradually develop an organ- 
ization which ultimately became a marvel of thor- 
oughness in its adaptation to the peculiar circum- 
stances which had arisen. 

Wesley assigned each preacher to his place, and re- 
moved him at pleasure. As a single society was not 
strong enough to support a preacher, and as the 
preachers were not numerous enough to permit each 
society to have the exclusive service of one, a number 
of societies were joined together in a circuit, and the 
few preachers assigned to the circuit traveled from 
point to point, so that all received the benefit of their 
ministrations. Then, that the preachers, who had the 
qualities of earnest evangelists rather than those of set- 
tled pastors, might be kept fresh in their enthusiasm 
and always have an abundance of topics and sermons, 
they were changed at certain times from place to place, 
and thus grew up the Methodist itinerancy. 

As it was necessary for Wesley to instruct his 
preachers and to receive reports from them, they came 
together once a year and discussed various matters of 
present and practical interest, and so arose the Annual 
Conferences of Methodism. 

Wesley now found himself the head of a remark- 



90 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

able organism. He was the chief among a large body 
of preachers. As a matter of fact they were minis- 
ters of the gospel, for they preached the gospel of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and that with an efficiency, to 
say the least, which was not surpassed by any other 
body of preachers in Great Britain. But they were 
rated as lay preachers because they had not been or- 
dained by the episcopal power of the Established 
Church, and Wesley himself so regarded them when 
he distinguished them from the clergy of the state 
Church. 

Had they been ordained ministers, Wesley might 
have been regarded as a bishop, similar to the bishops 
of the Christian Church in its early day, when the 
presiding presbyter was called bishop in contradis- 
tinction from the other presbyters. In fact, he was a 
bishop, for he was an overseer or superintendent, and 
his preachers, with the exception of the administra- 
tion of the sacraments, were practically true ministers 
of the gospel. 

Still Wesley clung to his old views as to ecclesias- 
tical polity, and yet the practical facts of the situation 
must have made a gradual but lasting impression 
that tended sooner or later to weaken his inherited 
prejudices. 

Mr. Wesley's first Conference, which was held in 
London, began on the 25th of June, 1744, and con- 
tinued five days. All his co-workers were not present 
at the Conference, but among those who assembled 



Wesley's Yiews on Church Government. 91 

were six clergymen of the Anglican Church, including 
John and Charles Wesley. 

The following points were proposed for consider- 
ation : " 1. What to teach ; 2. How to teach ; and, 
3. What to do ; that is, how to regulate our doctrine, 
discipline, and practice ; " and these points were very 
thoroughly discussed. 

Probably they did not fully comprehend all they 
were doing ; but, looking back to that time in the light 
of what has been accomplished, it is evident that they 
were laying the foundation of an elaborate ecclesias- 
tical structure. 

Under the head of " Points of Discipline," they 
considered the relation of the Methodists to the Church 
of England, and this led them to open the discussion 
on matters of discipline with a definition of the Es- 
tablished Church, and the following questions and 
answers were recorded : 

" Q. 1. What is the Church of England ? 

" A. According to the twentieth article the visible 
Church of England is the congregation of English 
believers, in which the pure word of God is preached, 
and the sacraments duly administered. 

" ( But the word i Church ' is sometimes taken, in a 
looser sense, for * a congregation professing to believe.' 
So it is taken in the twenty-sixth article, and in the 
first, second, and third chapters of the Revelation.) " 

" Q. 2. Who is a member of the Church of 
England ? 



92 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

" A. A believer, hearing the pure word of God 
preached, and partaking of the sacraments duly ad- 
ministered, in that Church." * 

This was broad enough to cover his own societies 
and also the dissenting bodies as parts of the real 
Church of England. That this was, probably, the 
intention will appear more plainly from a further 
definition given under a later question. After de- 
nying that they "separate from the Church," the 
following question was propounded : " What then 
do they mean who say, ' You separate from the 
Church ? ' " To which this reply is recorded : " We 
cannot tell. Perhaps they have no determinate 
meaning, unless by the Church they mean them- 
selves ; that is, that part of the clergy who accuse 
us of preaching false doctrine. And it is sure 
we do herein separate from them, by maintaining 
that which they deny." After this it is asked : " Do 
you not weaken the Church ? " and the answer is, 
" Do not they who ask this, by the Church, mean 
themselves ? We do not purposely weaken any man's 
hands. But accidentally we may thus far : they who 
come to know the truth by us will esteem such as 
deny it less than before. But the Church in the 
proper sense, the congregation of English believers, 
we do not weaken at all." 

This is very suggestive in many ways, but espe- 
cially in this : that Mr. Wesley was losing' his narrow 
* Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., vol. v, p. 197. 



Wesley's Yiews on Church Government. 93 

idea of the Church, so that now he denned it as " the 
congregation of English believers," which definition, 
in his mind, embraced many more than those who con- 
sidered themselves in actual membership in the state 
Church. 

The last question, which was of great moment, is 
as follows : 

u Q. 10. Do you not entail a schism on the Church ? 
that is, Is it not probable that your hearers, after your 
death, will be scattered into all sects and parties ; or 
that they will form themselves into a distinct sect ? 

" A. (1.) We are persuaded the body of our hearers 
will even after our death remain in the Church, 
unless they be thrust out. 

" (2.) We believe, notwithstanding, either that they 
will be thrust out or that they will leaven the whole 
Church. 

" (3.) We do, and will do, all we can to prevent 
those consequences which are supposed likely to 
happen after our death. 

" (4.) But we cannot with a good conscience neg- 
lect the present opportunity of saving souls while 
we live, for fear of consequences which may possibly 
or probably happen after we are dead." * 

Even then the possibility or probability of the 
Methodists becoming a distinct Church was realized 
by Mr. Wesley. He believed, however, that " the 
body " of them would remain in the state Church, 
* Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., vol. v, pp. 194-198. 



94 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



unless they were "thrust out/' He believed they 
would be thrust out or that they would " leaven the 
Church,*' but he was not to be deterred from his 
present work because of probable consequences in 
the future ; that is to say, he would go on even if it 
would finally result in separation. 

The same year another event occurred which perhaps 
unintentionally reveals some of the thoughts which 
were taking form in Wesley's mind. There was at 
that time a threatened invasion by the French in the 
interest of Charles Edward, the son of the Pretender, 
and a proclamation was published requiring all Ro- 
man Catholics to leave London. Xow it happened 
that among the calumnies circulated against Wesley's 
followers was one to the effect that they had leanings 
toward papacy. In consequence of this, some of 
Wesley's friends urged him to write an address to the 
king in defense of the Methodists. Wesley wrote 
the address, and in it described them as " a people 
scattered, and peeled, and trodden under foot ; traduced 
as inclined to popery, and consequently disaffected to 
his majesty," but that, on the contrary, they were u a 
part of the Protestant Church established in these 
kingdoms ; they detested the fundamental doctrines 
of the Church of Rome; and were steadily attached 
to his majesty's royal person and illustrious house, 
and ready to obey him to the uttermost, in all things 
which they conceived to be agreeable to the written 
word of God." 



Wesley's Yiews on Church Government. 95 



In this Wesley speaks for the Methodists as a dis- 
tinct body among the Protestants ; at least his brother, 
Charles Wesley, said that this would be the natural in- 
ference, and "objected to the sending of this address 
in the name of the Methodists, because it would con- 
stitute them a sect, or at least would seem to allow that 
they were a body distinct from the national Church. 
He wished his brother to guard against this, and then, 
in the name of the Lord, to address the king. Upon 
further consideration the address was laid aside." * 

The next year, 1745, his second Conference, which 
was held at Bristol, opened on the first and continued 
until the fifth day of August. On the third day the 
Conference debated points of church government, 
and the question asked was, " Is episcopal, presby- 
terian, or independent church government most 
agreeable to reason % " The following is the answer 
then given : 

"The plain origin of church government seems to 
be this : Christ sends forth a person to preach the 
gospel; some of those who hear him repent and 
believe in Christ ; they then desire him to watch 
over them, to build them up in faith, and to guide 
their souls into paths of righteousness. Here, 
then, is an independent congregation, subject to no 
pastor but their own ; neither liable to be controlled, 
in things spiritual, by any other man or body of men 

* Tyerman's Life of John Wesley, vol. i, p. 439 ; Charles Wesley's 
Journal, vol. i, p. 354. 



96 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



whatsoever. But soon after, some from other parts, 
who were occasionally present while he was speaking 
in the name of the Lord, beseech him to come over 
and help them also. He complies, jet not till he 
confers witli the wisest and holiest of his congrega- 
tion ; and with their consent appoints one who has 
gifts and grace to watch over his nock in his absence. 
If it please God to raise another flock in the new 
place, before he leaves them he does the same thing, 
appointing one whom God hath fitted for the work to 
watch over these souls also. In like manner, in every 
place where it pleases God to gather a little flock bj 
his word, he appoints one in his absence to take the 
oversight of the rest, to assist them as of the ability 
which God giveth. 

" These are deacons, or servants of the Church, and 
they look upon their first pastor as the common fa- 
ther of all these congregations, and regard him in the 
same light, and esteem him still as the shepherd of 
their souls. These congregations are not strictly in- 
dependent, as they depend upon one pastor, though 
not upon each other. 

' ; As these congregations increase, and the deacons 
grow in years and grace, they need other subordinate 
deacons, or helpers, in respect of whom they may be 
called presbyters or elders, as their father in the Lord 
ma} r be called the bishop or overseer of them all." * 

In this there is not a word about episcopal ordina- 

* Watson's Life of Wesley, Araer. Ed., 1836, p. 135. 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 97 

tion or formal laying on of bands. He simply speaks 
of a preacher, and he recognized his lay ministers 
as preachers. Who can read this and fail to see 
that in this declaration Wesley gives a vivid picture 
of the Methodist organization which had grown up 
under him ? A preacher gathers a congregation, and 
then one after another, until he has quite a number un- 
der his care. This is precisely what Mr. Wesley had 
done. Then, as he cannot be in every place at the 
same time, he calls to his aid other preachers to min- 
ister in his absence, and, as the work expands, junior 
preachers are called in to assist these seniors, and the 
original minister remains as the overseer of all the 
preachers and all the congregations. This was ex- 
actly the case with Wesley and his preachers. The 
assistant preachers when they begin are deacons ; then, 
as younger men come up to assist the older and more 
experienced they become the deacons, and the older 
men, as related to the younger, become presbyters or 
elders. The only legitimate inference is that it had 
already flashed upon Mr. Wesley that Methodism had 
passed through what he considered the different stages 
of church organization : first the independent congre- 
gation, then the presbyterial association, and at last the 
episcopal ; that his senior preachers were elders and 
his junior preachers were deacons, while he was a 
bishop — " the bishop or overseer of them all." 

There may have been inconsistencies in his lan- 
guage and his conduct at this period and later, but, if 
7 



98 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



there were, this is not to be wondered at. It is 
always so in the transition state of great reformers, 
for the human mind does not break away abruptly 
from its old habits of thought and expression. 

In the latter part of 1745 he was urged by his 
brother-in-law, the Eev. Westfey Hall, who was a 
clergyman of the establishment, to withdraw from 
the Church of England. Hall appears to have alleged 
that the Established Church had a papal hierarchy and 
prelacy, that it contained things which could not be 
defended, and that the attitude of "Wesley was incon- 
sistent. To this Wesley on the last day of the year 
replied : 

" You think, first, that we undertake to defend some 
things which are not defensible by the word of God. 
You instance three, on each of which we will explain 
ourselves as clearly as we can. 

" 1. That the validity of our ministry depends on 
a succession supposed to be from the apostles, and a 
commission derived from the pope of Rome, and his 
successors and dependents. 

" We believe it would not be right for us to admin- 
ister either baptism or the Lord's Supper, unless we 
had a commission so to do from those bishops whom 
we apprehend to be in a succession from the apostles. 
And yet we allow these bishops are the successors of 
those who were dependent'upon the bishop of Home. 
But we would be glad to know on what reasons you 
believe this to be inconsistent with the word of God. 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 99 

" 2. That there is an outward priesthood, and con- 
sequently an outward sacrifice, ordained and offered 
by the bishop of Rome and his successors and depend- 
ents, in the Church of England, as vicars and vice- 
gerents of Christ. 

"We believe there is, and always was, in every 
Christian Church (whether dependent on the bishop 
of Rome or not) an outward priesthood, ordained by 
Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein 
by men authorized to act as ambassadors of Christ, 
and stewards of the mysteries of God. On what 
grounds do you believe that Christ has abolished that 
priesthood or sacrifice ? 

" 3. That this papal hierarchy and prelacy which 
still continues in the Church of England is of apos- 
tolical institution, and authorized thereby, though not 
by the written word. 

"We believe that the threefold order of ministers 
(which you seem to mean by papal hierarchy and 
prelacy,) is not only authorized by its apostolical in- 
stitutions, but also by the written word. Yet we are 
willing to hear and weigh whatever reasons induce 
yon to believe to the contrary. 

" You think, secondly, that we ourselves give up 
some things as indefensible, which are defended by 
the same law and authority that establishes the things 
above mentioned ; such as are many of the laws, cus- 
toms, and practices of the ecclesiastical courts. 

" We allow, 1. That those laws, customs, and prac- 



100 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

tices are really indefensible. 2. That there are acts 
of Parliament in defense of them ; and also of the 
threefold order. 

"Bat will you show us how it follows, either 
(1) that those things and these stand and fall togeth- 
er? or (2) that we cannot sincerely plead for the one, 
though we give up the other ? Do you not here quite 
overlook one circumstance, which might be a key to 
our whole behavior? namely, that we no more look 
upon these filthy abuses which adhere to our Church 
as part of the building, than we look upon any filth 
which may adhere to the walls of Westminster Ab- 
bey as a part of that structure. 

" You think, thirdly, that there are many things 
which we defend and practice in open contradiction 
to the orders of the Church of England. And this 
you judge to be a just exception against the sincerity 
of our professions to adhere to it. 

' " Compare what we profess with what we practice, 
and you will possibly be of another judgment. "We 
profess, 1. That we will obey all the laws of that 
Church (such as we allow the rubrics to be, but not 
the customs of the ecclesiastical courts) so far as we 
can with a safe conscience ; 2. That we will obey, 
with the same restriction, the bishops, as executors 
of those laws. But their bare will, distinct from these 
laws, we do not profess to obey at all. 

"Now point out, What is there in our practice 
which is an open contradiction to these professions? 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 101 

Is field preaching f Not at all. It is contrary to no 
law which we profess to obey. The allowing of lay 
preachers f We are not clear that this is contrary to 
any such law. But if it is, this is one of the exempt 
cases ; one wherein we cannot obey with a safe con- 
science. Therefore, be it right or wrong on other 
accounts, it is, however, no just exception against our 
sincerity. The rules and directions given to our 
societies f which, you say, is a discipline utterly for- 
bidden by the bishops. When and where did any 
bishop forbid this, and if any did, by what law ? We 
know not either the man who ever did forbid, or the 
law by which he could forbid, it. The allowing per- 
sons (for we require none to communicate at the 
chapel) in contradiction (you think) to all those rubrics 
which require all to attend always on their own par- 
ish church and pastor, and to receive only at his table ? 
Which rubrics are those? We cannot find them. 
And till these are produced, all that is so frequently 
said of parochial unity, etc., is merely a gratis dictum. 
Consequently, neither is this any just exception against 
the sincerity of any of our professions." * 

This letter is very valuable as showing what ex- 
tremely High-Church views Wesley at one time held, 
and yet the unprejudiced mind cannot help feeling 
that some of these exceedingly strong expressions are 
the last resort of a skilled disputant who realizes that 
he is being thrown upon the defensive, and that his 

* Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Jour., vol. iii, pp. 362, 363. 



102 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



cherished theories are in danger of destruction. Any- 
candid person who reads it in the light of the work 
Wesley was doing cannot help feeling that, amid this 
startling enunciation of High-Church principles, there 
was the struggling of a mighty brain, at once con- 
servative and yet progressive, which was striving to 
find the light, but which had not yet emerged from 
the darkness. 

He says : " It would not be right to administer 
either baptism or the Lord's Supper " without " a com- 
mission so to do from those bishops whom we appre- 
hend to be in a succession from the apostles," but at 
the same time, as though he began to doubt the 
strength of his position or wished it could be over- 
turned, he says : " We would be glad to know on what 
reasons you believe this to be inconsistent with the 
word of God ? " He believes in an outward priest- 
hood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sac- 
rifice, but, as an inquirer, he asks, " On what grounds 
do you believe that Christ has abolished that priest- 
hood or sacrifice ? " He believes " that the threefold 
order of ministers is not only authorized by its apos- 
tolical institution, but also by the written word. Yet," 
he adds, " we are willing to hear and weigh whatever 
reasons induce you to believe the contrary." He is 
very devoted to the Church of England, but the argu- 
ment of practical necessity is carrying him so far 
that even if it should be discovered that lay preaching 
was contrary to the ecclesiastical law his conscience 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 103 

wonld not allow him to obey. This vigorous lan- 
guage was the expression of one who had almost 
reached the turning point. He reluctantly gave up 
cherished traditions, but maturing judgment and prac- 
tical work, as well as the abuses which he admitted 
did exist in the State Church, were turning his gaze 
from the superstitions of the dim past to the facts of 
the living present. 

Notwithstanding the seeming strength of the High- 
Church expressions just quoted, Wesley, however, 
was making rapid progress, and the next year marked 
an epoch in his ecclesiastical conceptions. In that 
year, 1746, he set out for Bristol, and, as was his 
habit, read as he journeyed along the road. The au- 
thor of the book he read was Lord Peter King, Lord 
High Chancellor of England, and a nephew of the 
celebrated philosopher, John Locke. The work was 
An Enquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, 
and Worship of the Primitive Church. It was is- 
sued about a dozen years before Wesley was born, and 
the author had died just about twelve years before 
Wesley made this journey to Bristol. The fact that 
Lord King was a rigid Dissenter was very suggestive. 
It is at least significant of growing liberality that 
Wesley, the Churchman, was willing to go to King, 
the Dissenter, to learn something about the true gov- 
ernment of the Christian Church. 

Lord King, in his Constitution of the Primitive 
Church, says : 



lOi The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



" Now the definition of a presbyter may be this : a 
person in holy orders, having thereby an inherent 
right to perform the whole office of a bishop ; but 
being possessed of no place or parish, not actually 
discharging it without the permission and consent of 
the bishop of a place or parish. 

" But, lest this definition should seem obscure, I 
shall illustrate it by this following instance : as a cu- 
rate has the same mission and power with the minis- 
ter whose place he supplies, yet, being not the minis- 
ter of that place, he cannot perform there any acts of 
his ministerial function without leave from the min- 
ister thereof ; so a presbyter has the same order and 
power with a bishop whom he assisted in his cure, 
yet, being not the bishop or minister of that cure, he 
could not there perform any part of his pastoral of- 
fice without the permission of the bishop thereof ; so 
that what we generally render bishops, priests, and 
deacons would be more intelligible in our tongue if 
we did express it by rectors, vicars, and deacons : by 
rectors understanding the bishops, and by vicars 
the presbyters ; the former being the actual in- 
cumbents of a place, and the latter curates or assist 
ants, and so different in degree but yet equal in 
order. 

"Now this is what I understand by a presbyter, for 
the confirmation of which these two things are to be 
proved : 

" I. That the presbyters were the bishops' curates 



Wesley's Views on Church" Government. 105 

and assistants, and so inferior to them in the actual 
exercise of their ecclesiastical commission. 

" II. That yet, notwithstanding, they had the same 
inherent right with the bishops, and so were not a dis- 
tinct specific order from them. Or more briefly thus : 

" 1. That the presbyters were different from the 
bishops in gradu, or in degree, but yet 

" 2. They were equal to them in ordine, or in or- 
der. . . . 

" Though a presbyter, by his ordination, had as 
ample an inherent right and power to discharge all 
clerical offices as any bishop in the world had, yet 
peace, unity, and order obliged him not to invade that 
part of God's Church which was committed to another 
man's care, without that man's approbation and con- 
sent. . . . 

" But though the presbyters were thus different 
from the bishops in degree, yet they were of the very 
same specific order with them, having the same inher- 
ent right to perform those ecclesiastical offices which 
the bishop did. . . . 

" As for ordination, I find but little said of this in 
antiquity ; yet, as little as there is, there are clearer 
proofs of the presbyters' 1 ordaining than there are of 
their administering the Lord's Supper. ' All power 
and grace,' saith Firmilian, ' is constituted in the 
Church, where seniors preside, who have the power 
of baptizing, confirming, and oi'daining' (Apud 
Cyprian, EpisL, 75, §6, p. 237). 



106 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

" What these seniors were will be best understood 
by a parallel place in Tertnllian ; for that place in 
Tertullian and this in Firniilian are usually cited to 
expound one another by most learned men, as by 
the most learned Dr. Cave {Primitive Christianity, 
part 3, c. 5, p. 379) and others. Now the passage in 
Tertullian is this : In the ecclesiastical courts 4 ap- 
proved elders preside' (ApoL, c. 39, p. 709). Now by 
these approved elders bishops and presbyters must 
necessarily be understood, because Tertullian speaks 
here of the discipline exerted in one particular 
church or parish, in which there was but one bishop ; 
and if only he had presided, then there could not 
have been elders in the plural number; but, there 
being many elders, to make out their number we 
must add the presbyters to the bishop, who also pre- 
sided with him, as we shall show in another place. 
Now the same that presided in church consistories, 
the same also ordained ; presbyters, as well as bishops, 
ordained. And as in those churches where there 
were presbyters both they and the bishop presided 
together, so also they ordained together, both lay- 
ing on their hands in ordination, as St. Timothy 
was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery (1 Tim. iv, 14) ; that is, by the hands of 
the bishop and presbyters of that parish where 
he was ordained, as is the constant signification 
of the word presbytery in all the writings of the 
ancients. . . . 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 107 

"Now, then, if the presbyters could supply the 
place of an absent bishop, and in general discharge 
all those offices to which a bishop had been obliged if 
he had been present, it naturally follows that the 
presbyters could discharge every particular act and 
part thereof. If I should say such an one has all the 
senses of a man, and yet also assert he cannot see, I 
should be judged a self-contradictor in that assertion ; 
for in affirming that he had all the human senses I 
also affirmed that he saw, because seeing is one of 
those senses ; for whatsoever is affirmed of a univer- 
sal is also affirmed of every one of its particulars. 
So when the fathers say that the presbyters performed 
the whole office of the bishop it naturally ensues that 
they confirmed, ordained, baptized, etc., because those 
are particulars of that universal. 

" But now, from the whole, we may collect a solid 
argument for the equality of presbyters with bishops 
as to order ; for if a presbyter did all a bishop did, 
what difference was there between them ? A bishop 
preached, baptized, and confirmed — so did a presby- 
ter. A bishop excommunicated, absolved, and or- 
dained — so did a presbyter. Whatsoever a bishop did, 
the same did a presbyter ; the particular acts of their 
office were the same ; the only difference that was be- 
tween them was in degree, but this proves there was 
none at all in order, 

" 2. That bishops and presbyters were of the same 
order appears also from that originally they had one 



108 



The Episcopacy of 



Methodism. 



and the same name, each of them being indifferently 
called bishops or presbyters. . . . 

" Thus, on the one hand, the titles of presbyters are 
given unto bishops ; as Irenseus, in his sy nodical epistle, 
twice calls Anicetus, Pins, Hogynus, Telespoms, and 
Xistus, bishops of Rome, TrpeafivTepoi, or presbyters 
(Apud Euseb., lib. 5, c. 24, p. 193). And those bish- 
ops who derived their succession immediately from 
the apostles he calls the presbyters in the Church 
(lib. 4, c. 43, p. 277) ; and whom Clemens Alexandrius 
in one line calls the bishop of a certain city not far 
from Ephesus, a few lines after he calls the presbyter 
(Apud Fuseb., lib. 5, c. 24, p. 193). 

u And, on the other hand, the titles of bishops 
are ascribed to presbyters, as one of the discretive 
appellations of a bishop is pastor. Yet Cyprian also 
calls his presbyters the pastors of the flock (Epis. ii, 
sec. 1, p. 33). Another was that of president, or 
one set over the people. Yet Cyprian also calls his 
presbyters presidents, or set over the people (Epis. ii, 
sec. 2, p. 33). The bishops were also called rectors or 
rulers. So Origen calls the presbyters the governors of 
the people (Comment in Matt., vol. i, p. 246). And 
we find both bishops and presbyters included under 
the common name of presidents or prelates, by St. 
Cyprian, in this his exhortation to Pomponins : 
'And if all must observe the divine discipline, 
how much more must the presidents and deacons 
do it, who by their conversation and manners must 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 109 



yield a good example to others ' (Epis. lxii, sec. 2, 
p. 169). 

" Now if the same appellation of a thing be a 
good proof for the identity of its nature, then bish- 
ops and presbyters must be of the same order, because 
they had the same names and titles. Suppose it was 
disputed whether a parson and lecturer were of the 
same order, would not this sufficiently prove the af- 
firmative ? That though for some accidental respects 
they might be distinguished in their appellations, yet 
originally and frequently they were called by one and 
the same name ? The same it is in this case ; though 
for some contingent and adventitious reasons, bishops 
and presbyters were discriminated in their titles, yet 
originally they were always, and afterward sometimes, 
called by one and the same appellation, and, there- 
fore, we may justly deem them to be one and the 
same order. 

" But if this reason be not thought cogent enough, 
the third and last will unquestionably put all out of 
doubt, and most clearly evince the identity or same- 
ness of bishops and presbyters as to order ; and that 
is, that it is expressly said by the ancients that there 
were but two distinct ecclesiastical orders, namely, 
bishops and deacons, or presbyters and deacons ; and 
if there were but these two, presbyters cannot be dis- 
tinct from bishops, for then there would be three. 
Now that there were but two orders, namely, 
bishops and deacons, is plain from that golden an- 



110 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



cient remains of Clemens Komanus, wherein he thus 
writes : ' In the country and cities where the apos- 
tles preached they ordained their first converts for 
bishops and deacons over those who should believe.' 
Nor were these orders new, for many ages past 
it was thus prophesied concerning bishops and dea- 
cons : ' I will appoint their bishops in righteousness 
and their deacons in faith' (Ejois. i, ad Corinth., p. 51). 
This place of Scripture which is here quoted is in 
Isa. lx, 17 : 'I will make thine officers peace, and 
thine exactors righteousness.' Whether it is rightly 
applied is not my business to determine. What I 
observe from hence is that there were but two orders 
instituted by the apostles, namely, bishops and dea- 
cons, which Clemens supposes were prophetically 
promised long before ; and this is more evidently as- 
serted in another passage of the said Clemens a little 
after, where he says that ' the apostles foreknew, 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, that contention would 
arise about the name of episcopacy, and, therefore, 
being endued with a perfect foreknowledge, ap- 
pointed the aforesaid officers, namely, bishops and 
deacons, and left the manner of their succession 
described, so that when they died other approved 
men might succeed them and perform their office' 
{Epis. i, ad Corinth., p. 57). So that there were 
only the two orders of bishops and deacons insti- 
tuted by the apostles ; and if they ordained but those 
two, I think no one had ever a commission to add a 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. Ill 

third or to split one into two, as must be done if 
we separate the order of presbyters from the order of 
bishops." * 

Such were some of the views and arguments which 
Wesley considered on his way to Bristol, and so far- 
reaching was the result of this perusal that it is well 
for the student of Wesley's career to have some of 
the very words of the author before him, and there- 
fore the preceding extract has been given. 

The churchly Wesley, with his ideas of apostolic 
succession, episcopal ordination, and three clerical 
orders, must have been astounded at Lord King's as- 
sertion that bishops and presbyters were not two dis- 
tinct orders but " one and the same order ; " that " pres- 
byters performed the whole office of the bishop," 
doing "all a bishop did;" that presbyters " had the 
same inherent right to perform those ecclesiastical 
offices which the bishop did," and that " there are 
clearer proofs of the presbyters' ordaining than there 
are of their administering the Lord's Supper ; " and lie 
must have been overwhelmed by the evidence adduced, 
for he made the following entry in his Journal : "I 
set out for Bristol. On the road I read over Lord 
King's account of the Primitive Church. In spite of 
the vehement prejudice of my education, I was ready 
to believe that this was a fair and impartial draught ; 
but if so it would follow that bishops and presbyters 
are (essentially) of one order, and that, originally, 
♦King's Primitive Church. London, 1839, pp. 45-60. 



112 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



every Christian congregation was a church independ- 
ent of all others." * 

This marks an epoch in Wesley's ecclesiastical 
views, and from this time he believed "that bishops 
and presbyters are the same order, and consequently 
have the same right to ordain." f 

It has been asserted that Wesley never gave up the 
idea of a higher order episcopacy, and never admitted 
that presbyters had the same right to ordain as bishops, 
until he was passed eighty years of age and was in 
his dotage. But the fact is, first, that at eighty and 
later he was an exceedingly active man, and possessed 
of remarkable strength of intellect ; and, second, that 
when he drew the inference from his reading of 
Lord King's book "that bishops and presbyters are 
(essentially) of one order" he was only forty-three 
years of age, and consequently in the youth of his 
prime. 

Previous facts, such as have already been suggested, 
were changing Wesley's spirit of exclusiveness even 
before his reading of King's Primitive Church. Up 
to a late date he had found his associations almost 
entirely with the Methodists and with clergymen 
of the Church of England, a number of whom co-op- 
erated with him in his work. He was rather an ex- 
clusive churchman, notwithstanding his supposed ir- 
regularities in preaching in unconsecrated places, 

♦Wesley's Journal, January 13, 1746. 

f Letter to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbur}-, and Methodists in America. 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 113 

gathering societies, and employing lay preachers. 
But now a change takes place, and he becomes more 
liberal in spirit and in his actions toward those of his 
countrymen who were separated from the Establish- 
ment. As Tyerman puts it, "Wesley had chiefly 
lived within the State Church inclosure," but after 
becoming " a convert to the principles of Lord King 
he overstepped the enchanted circle, and thought it no 
disgrace to commune and mingle with Dissenters." * 
The fact is, however, that nearly four months before 
he read Lord King's book he called (September 9, 
1745) on the celebrated Dr. Doddridge, who was 
pastor of a Dissenting congregation at Northampton, 
and the principal of an academy for the education of 
candidates for the ministry of the Dissenting body, 
and during this visit Wesley addressed Doddridge's 
students. The entry Mr. Wesley made in his Jour- 
nal of this event is as follows : " 1 left London, and 
the next morning called on Dr. Doddridge at North- 
ampton. It was about the hour when he was accus- 
tomed to expound a portion of Scripture to the young 
gentlemen under his care. He desired me to take 
his place. It may be the seed was not altogether 
sown in vain." f 

Desiring to construct a course of study for his 
preachers, Wesley wrote to this distinguished minister 
asking him to suggest suitable works on various sub- 

* Tyerman's Life of Wesley, vol. i, p. 515. 
f Wesley's Works, Journal, Amer. Ed., vol. iii, p. 350. 
8 



114 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



jects. On March 15, 1746, Dr. Doddridge wrote 
explaining and regretting delay. On the 18th of the 
following June he wrote a long letter giving the de- 
sired list of books. Even as early as the 1st of Feb- 
ruary, 1740, Wesley, while still devoted to the State 
Church and resenting the intimation that he had be- 
come a Dissenter, seems to feel that devout Dissent- 
ers from the State Church were to be preferred to 
the irreligious people who deemed it their chief vir- 
tue that they conformed to the external requirements 
of the Establishment. 

In his Journal of the above date is the following 
record : " The ordinary of Kewgate came to me and. 
with much vehemence, told me he was sorry I should 
turn Dissenter from the Church of England. I told 
him, if it was so, I did not know it ; at which he 
seemed a little surprised, and offered something by 
way of proof, but which needed not a reply. 

" Our twentieth Article defines a true church a 1 con- 
gregation of faithful people wherein the true word 
of God is preached and the sacraments duly adminis- 
tered.' According to this account the Church of En- 
gland is that body of faithful people or holy believers, 
in England, among whom the pure word of God is 
preached and the sacraments duly administered. "Who 
then are the worst Dissenters from this Church ? 
1. Unholy men of all kinds; swearers, Sabbath-break- 
ers, drunkards, fighters, whoremongers, liars, revilers. 
evil speakers ; the passionate, the gay, the lovers of 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 115 

money, the lovers of dress or of praise, the lovers of 
pleasure more than lovers of God — all these are Dis- 
senters of the highest sort, continually striking at the 
root of the Church, and themselves belonging in truth 
to no church, but to the synagogue of Satan. 2. Men 
unsound in the faith ; those who deny the Scripture 
of truth ; those who deny the Lord that bought them ; 
those who deny justification by faith alone, or the 
present salvation which is by faith — these also are 
Dissenters of a very high kind, for they likewise 
strike at the foundation, and were their principles 
universally to obtain there could be no true church 
upon earth. Lastly, those who unduly administer the 
sacraments ; who (to instance but in one point) admin- 
ister the Lord's Supper to such as have neither the 
power nor the form of godliness. These too are gross 
Dissenters from the Church of England, and should 
not cast the first stone at others." * 

Even if he was a High Churchman, he had gotten 
beyond believing that there was any saving power in the 
sacraments for the man who continued in sin. The 
logic of these principles would sooner or later lead him 
to see that Dissenting bodies might be true churches, 
and force upon him the thought that, according to 
the Article from which he quoted, his own societies 
were true churches, for they contained " faithful peo- 
ple," and in their congregations " the true word of 
God " was preached, and even the sacraments were 

♦Wesley's Works, Journal, Amer. Ed., vol. Hi, p. 177. 



116 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



administered to these people by John and Charles 
Wesley and John Fletcher. * 

The perusal of Lord King's work fixed his views 
to a great extent, but his mind had been steadily 
moving toward the point where it could be settled. 
As Watson remarks : u The truth is, that Lord King 
came in only to confirm him in views which he had 
for some time begun to entertain ; and they were 
such as show that though he was a Church of En- 
gland man as to affection, which was strong and sin- 
cere as far as its doctrines and its liturgy were con- 
cerned, and though he regarded it with great defer- 
ence as a legal institution, yet in respect of its eccle- 
siastical polity he was even then very free in his 
opinions." \ 

King helped to precipitate the sediment of er- 
ror and to produce mental clearness, and his opinion 
as to the parity of bishops and presbyters and the 
right of presbyters to ordain became the key to his 
future theories and practice. 

About four months after he was impressed by 
King's facts and arguments, he held his third Con- 
ference. It convened on the 13th of May, 1746, and 
the following extract will show that the propriety of 
formally ordaining the preachers was in the mind of 
the preachers and their " bishop or overseer." It is 
as follows : 

* Tyerman's Life of Wesley, vol. i, p. 353 ; ii, p. 263. 
f Watson's Life of Wesley, Araer. Ed., pp. 134, 135. 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 117 

" Q. Why do we not use more form and solemnity 
in receiving a new laborer? 

" A. We purposely decline it : 1. Because there is 
something of stateliness in it. 2. Because we would 
not make haste. We desire barely to follow Prov- 
idence, as it gradually opens." * 

This evidently refers to the full form of ordina- 
tion, and it will be noticed that there is no confes- 
sion of conscious lack of authority to ordain, but, 
on the contrary, it suggests that though they are 
not in haste they look forward to a time when the 
Methodist preachers would or might be ordained by 
Wesley, assisted, it may be, by others representing 
the Conference. 

It is a mistake to suppose that Wesley sent out 
his preachers without any formality. It is claimed, 
indeed, that the form he did use had the very 
essence of ministerial ordination. Thus Watson 
observes : 

" It has been generally supposed that Mr. Wesley 
did not consider his appointment of preachers as an 
ordination to the ministry ; but only as an irregular 
employment of laymen in the spiritual office of merely 
expounding the Scriptures in a case of moral neces- 
sity. This is not correct. They were not appointed 
to expound, or preach merely, but were solemnly set 
apart to the pastoral office ; nor were they regarded 
by him as laymen except when in common parlance 

* Tyermau's Wedty, vol. iii, pp. 510, 511. 



118 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

they were distinguished from the clergy of the 
Church." * 

Tyerman remarks that "his usual mode of setting 
apart or ordaining to the ministry consisted of a 
most rigid examination of the ministerial candidate 
on the three points: Has he grace? Has he gifts? 
Has he fruit? preceded by fasting and prayer; and 
followed by official and authoritative appointment to 
ministerial work. For the present, the form of laying 
on of hands was not employed ; but it was thought of 
and was discussed." f He never allowed any one to 
officiate as one of his preachers who had not been 
formally recognized in some such manner as that 
above mentioned. Still we are not prepared to call 
that a full ordination, for Wesley did not give his 
preachers in those early days power to administer 
the sacraments. The members of his societies con- 
tinued to receive the sacraments from John and 
Charles Wesley, J and other clergymen of the Es- 
tablished Church who co-operated with Mr. Wesley 
in the evangelical movement, or they went to the 
parish church and received the sacraments at the 
hands of the incumbent. 

An interesting: incident in this connection is that 
related of the Rev. John Fletcher, another clergyman 
of the Anglican Church, who, as soon as he was or- 
dained, went to assist Mr. Wesley in this very 

* Watson's Works, vol. v, p. 148. 

f Tyermau's Lift of Wesley, vol. i, p. 510. J <B**i P- 353 - 



Wesley's Views on Chuech Government. 119 



work. Wesley remarks that, "It was in the } r ear 
1757 that he (Fletcher) was ordained both deacon 
and priest. He was ordained at Whitehall ; and 
the same day, being informed that I had no one 
to assist me at West Street Chapel, he came away 
as soon as ever the ordination was over, and as- 
sisted me in the administration of the Lord's Sup 
per." * 

Whether Wesley's preachers should or should not 
have had the right to administer the sacraments is not 
the question now before us. That Wesley believed 
he had the power to give them that right is already 
exceedingly plain. He was a presbyter, and he now 
held that presbyters and bishops were the same or- 
der, and, therefore, being the same order, had the 
same right to ordain, and the extract from the Min- 
utes of the Conference of 1716 makes manifest that 
he and his preachers were meditating the question 
of full ordination as a possibility, and were patient- 
ly waiting the providential indications as to the 
time when it would to them seem proper. With 
him it had become not a question of power, but of 
prudence, and that the Methodist preachers at an 
early day solicited ordination is a well-known fact of 
history, f 

A year after this, namely, 1717, the Minutes of the 

* Wesley's Life of Fletcher, Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., vol. vi, 
p. 435. 

f Tyerman's Life of Wesley, iii, p. 444. 



120 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

Conference contain the following questions and an- 
swers : 

" Q. Does a Church in the New Testament always 
mean a single congregation ? 

" A. We believe it does ; we do not recollect any 
instance to the contrary. 

" Q. What instance or ground is there then in the 
New Testament for a national Church ? 

" A. We know none at all ; we apprehend it to be 
a merely political institution. 

" Q. Are the three orders of bishops, priests, and 
deacons plainly described in the New Testament ? 

" A. We think they are, and believe they generally 
obtained in the Church of the apostolic age. 

" Q. But are you assured that God designed the 
same plan should obtain in all churches, throughout 
all ages? 

" A. We are not assured of it, because we do not 
know it is asserted in Holy Writ. 

" Q. If the plan were essential to a Christian 
Church, what must become of all foreign Eeformed 
Churches ? 

"A. It would follow they are no part of the 
Church of Christ ; a consequence full of shocking 

absurdity, 

" Q. In what age was the divine right of episco- 
pacy first asserted in England ? 

" A. About the middle of Queen Elizabeth's reign : 
till then all the bishops and clergy in England con- 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 121 

tinually allowed, and joined in, the ministrations of 
those who were not episcopally ordained. 

" Q. Must there not be numberless accidental 
variations in the government of various churches ? 

"A. There must, in the nature of things. As 
God variously dispenses his gifts of nature, provi- 
dence, and grace, both the offices themselves and the 
officers in each ought to be varied from time to time. 

" Q. Why is it that there is no determinate plan of 
Church government appointed in Scripture ? 

"A. Without doubt because the wisdom of God 
had a regard to that necessary variety. 

" Q. Was there any thought of uniformity in the 
government of all churches until the time of Con- 
stantine ? 

" A. It is certain there was not, nor would there 
have been then had men consulted the word of God 
only."* 

Among other things this shows that Wesley no 
longer had his old reverence for a national Church. 
He finds no ground in the New Testament for a 
State Church, and apprehends that it is " merely a 
political institution." He is not " assured that God 
designed the same plan of polity should obtain in all 
churches, throughout all ages," because he does not 
find it so asserted in Holy Writ. He considers that 
there must be " numberless accidental varieties in the 
government of various churches ; " that this must be 

* Watson's Life of Wesley, Anaer. Ed., pp. 137, 138. 



122 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



"in the nature of things," "for as God variously 
dispenses his gifts of nature, providence, and grace, 
both the offices themselves and the officers in each 
ought to be varied from time to time," and that it 
was because " the wisdom of God had a regard to 
this necessary variety " that there " is no determinate 
plan of Church government appointed in Scripture." 
He finds further that there was no " thought of 
uniformity in the government of all churches until 
the time of Constantine," and that there would not 
have been then, " had men consulted the word of 
God only." Coming down to the English Church 
he declares that the "divine right of episcopacy" 
was not asserted in England until " about the middle 
of Queen Elizabeth's reign," and that u till then all 
the bishops and clergy in England continually 
allowed, and joined in, the ministrations of those who 
were not episcopally ordained." 

Pie sees the logic of considering that episcopal 
government was " essential to a Christian Church," 
for, according to this, it would follow that " all the 
foreign Eeformed Churches " " are no parts of the 
Church of Christ," which he considers "a conse- 
quence full of shocking absurdity." 

He is no longer a High Churchman. With him 
episcopacy is simply a matter of expediency, and 
bodies without episcopal ordination are true churches 
and have a valid ministry. He still clings to the 
State Church, but he could not see any scriptural 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 123 

authority for a national Church, and, as with him the 
Bible was the final court of appeal, the Church' of 
England was " a merely political institution." It is 
true that he says he thinks "the three orders of 
bishops, priests, and deacons " are " plainly described 
in the New Testament," and believes " they generally 
obtained in the churches of the apostolic age ; " but 
his use of the phrase " three orders " is probably 
through force of long habit, for it was only the year 
before that he had agreed with Lord King that pres- 
byters and bishops were " the same order" and, con- 
sequently, he could only have two orders. He had 
not yet fully adjusted his expressions to his newly 
accepted theory. Probably all that he means to say 
is that the three names, " bishops, priests, and deacons," 
are found in the New Testament and the apostolic 
age. In the light of what he tells us as to the effect 
of King's views upon his mind, it is certain that he 
cannot mean that bishops and presbyters are distinct 
clerical orders, and that a bishop is superior in order 
to the presbyter. His own words are that from the 
time he read Lord King he was " convinced " " that 
bishops and presbyters are the same order." 

Most assuredly in one year a marked advance has 
been made, and, to see clearly what a great change 
has taken place, one need but contrast these views 
with those he declared in his letter of only a little 
over a year before (December 30, 1745) when he be- 
lieved in apostolic succession, in a "threefold order 



124 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



of ministers " " not only authorized by its apostolical 
institution, but also by the written word," in " an 
outward sacrifice," and in the illegality of adminis- 
tering sacraments by any excepting those " who had 
a commission so to do from those bishops whom " he 
apprehended " to be in succession from the apostles." 

That we may have the chronology of those steps 
before us, let us recall the fact that it was at his second 
Conference, held at Bristol, in August of 1745, that 
he gives his ideas of the origin of the different forms 
of church government, and so phrases it that the 
reader is impressed with the thought that Wesley is 
beginning to feel that he is a bishop — and that his 
senior and junior preachers are presbyters and dea- 
cons. On the last day of this year he writes to his 
brother-in-law, giving his belief in High-Church ideas, 
but asking for evidence to overturn this belief. A 
few days after this, in January, 1746, he becomes ac- 
quainted with Lord King's conception of church gov- 
ernment, and concludes that presbyters and bishops 
are the same order, and that presbyters have the same 
right to ordain. Less than three months after this, 
namely, May 13, 1746, he broaches the subject of ordi- 
nation in his Conference, explaining why the reception 
or setting apart of the preachers has not been more 
formal, and intimating that the full form of ordina- 
tion may yet be used. In the Conference held the 
next year, 1747, in London, the question of church 
government is quite fully discussed: he denies that 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 125 

any form of Church government is of divine author- 
ity and binding forever ; denies that episcopal ordina- 
tion is necessary for a valid ministry, and recognizes 
as true Christian Churches those that are without an 
episcopal government. Such is the ecclesiastical evo- 
lution which appears to have taken place in less than 
two years. He was now about forty-four years of 
age ; so that it is not true, as some would have it 
understood, that he did not adopt such views until he 
was an octogenarian with enfeebled powers. 

It is probable that after reading King's Primitive 
Church he read Stillingfleet's Irenicum. In his 
comparison of the views of these learned authors he 
must have been struck with a decided similarity be- 
tween the views of the Dissenter and those of the 
Churchman, and the latter seems to have had almost 
as great influence upon him as the former. 

On the 24th of September, 1755, after stating the 
reasons for separation urged, as he says, by those 
who " have weighed the point long and deeply, with 
earnest and continued prayer," he remarks : " I will 
freely acknowledge that I cannot answer these argu- 
ments to my own satisfaction. So that my conclusion, 
which I cannot yet give up — that it is lawful to con- 
tinue in the Church — stands, I know not how, almost 
without any premises that are to bear its weight." * 
So that at this period he had reached a point where 

* Wesley's Works, Letter to Rev. Mr. Walker, Amer. Ed., vol. vii, 
p. 274. 



126 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



he was compelled to acknowledge his inability to sat- 
isfactorily meet the arguments advanced in favor of 
separating from the Established Church, though he 
continues to adhere, and deems it " lawful to continue 
in the Church." 

A letter which Mr. Wesley wrote on the 3d of 
Julj T , 1756, when he was fifty-three years of age, to 
the .Rev. Mr. Clarke, of Hollymount, a clergyman 
of the Established Church, shows us the effect Stil- 
lingfleet had on him, and also how his views were 
steadily maturing. In this he says : 

" My general proposition, you may -pjease to remem- 
ber, is this : All the children of God may unite in love, 
notwithstanding difference in opinions or worship. 

" From this persuasion, whenever I meet with any 
whom I have reason to believe children of God, 1 do 
not ask of him with whom I, would unite in love 
(never at the entrance upon our conversation, seldom 
till we are a little acquainted), ' Do you agree with my 
opinions and mode of worship, particularly with re- 
gard to church government, baptism, and the Lord's 
Supper ? ' I £ let all these stand by ' till we begin to 
know and have confirmed our love to each other. 
Then may come 'a more convenient season' for en- 
tering into controversy. My only question at present 
is, 'Is thy heart right?' ... As to my own judgment, 
I still believe ' the episcopal form of Church govern- 
ment to be scriptural and apostolical.' I mean, well 
agreeing with the practice and writings of the apos- 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 127 

ties. But that it is prescribed in Scripture I do not 
believe. This opinion, which I once zealously es- 
poused, I have been heartily ashamed of, ever since I 
read Bishop Stillingfleet's Irenicon. I think he has 
unanswerably proved that ' neither Christ nor his 
apostle 1 & prescribe any particular form of Church gov- 
ernment ; and that the plea of divine right for dio- 
cesan episcopacy was never heard of in the primitive 
Church.' 

"But, were it otherwise, I should still call these 
' smaller points ' than the 6 loving God and all man- 
kind ; ' and could any man answer those questions, 
'Dost thou believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, God 
over all, blessed forever? ' (which indeed no Arian or 
semi-Arian, and much less Socinian, can do,) 4 Is 
God the center of thy soul ? the sum of all thy de- 
sires? Art thou more afraid of displeasing God than 
of either death or hell ? ' which no wicked man can 
possibly do ; none who is not a real child of God : if, 
I say, a man could answer these in the affirmative, I 
would gladly give him my hand. . . . 

" As to heresy and schism, I cannot find one text 
in the Bible where they are taken in the modern 
sense. I remember no one Scripture wherein heresy 
signifies ' error in opinion,' whether fundamental or 
not ; nor any wherein schism signifies a ' separation 
from the Church,' whether with cause or without. I 
wish, sir, you would reconsider this point, and review 
the Scriptures wherein those terms occur. 



128 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



" Yet I would take some pains to recover any one 
from error, or to reconcile him to our Church. I 
mean to the Church of England, from which I do not 
separate yet, and probably never shall. The little 
church, in the vulgar sense of the word, which I occa- 
sionally mentioned at Holy Mount, is that wherein I 
read prayers, and preach, and administer the sacra- 
ment every Sunday when I am in London. But I 
would take much more pains to recover any one from 
sin. One who lives and dies in error, or in dissent 
from our Church, may yet be saved ; but one who 
lives and dies in sin must perish. O, sir, let us 
bend our main force against this, against all sin, both 
in ourselves and them that hear us. I would to God 
we could all agree both in opinions and outward 
worship ; but, if this cannot be, may we not agree 
in being holy, as he that hath called us is holy, both 
ill heart and in all manner of conversation ? This is 
the great desire of, reverend sir, your very humble 
servant." * 

King taught him that presbyters and bishops were 
not different in order, but the same order. Stilling- 
fleet convinces him that there is no " divine right for 
diocesan episcopacy," and that no " particular form of 
church government " was prescribed either by Christ 
or his apostles, and he is " heartily ashamed " that he 
ever " zealously espoused " the contrary. Going fur- 
ther, and taking the Bible as authority in regard to 
* Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., vol. vii, p. 284, 285. 



Wesley's Views on Chuech Government. 129 

the meaning of the term, he evidently is unwilling to 
call a "separation from the Church" a schism. 

Hence he would not call the Dissenters from the 
Church of England schismatics. And yet this is the 
man whom some to-day are ready to refer to as 
though he despised Dissenters. He still believes in 
"the episcopal form of Church government" as 
" scriptural and apostolical " in the sense that it agrees 
well, or is not out of harmony, " with the practice 
and writings of the apostles," but not " that it is 
prescribed in Scripture." He has reached a point 
where the important matter, according to his judg- 
ment, is not agreeing " in opinions and outward wor- 
ship," though this would be desirable, but agreeing 
" in holiness." It is a good thing to convert a man 
from an erroneous opinion or to reconcile him to the 
Church, but the vital thing is to save him from sin ; 
for one who has an erroneous opinion or who dissents 
from the Church may be saved, " but one who lives 
and dies in sin must perish." He maintains that 
" all the children of God may unite in love, notwith- 
standing difference in opinions or form of worship," 
and he gladly gives his hand to all who believe in 
the Lord Jesus Christ. These are the advancing 
views of one who believes more in the practical pur- 
poses than in the accidents of ecclesiastical organiza- 
tion, and who is more concerned about the inner 
spiritual life than the external form. It will also be 

observed that he has begun to speak of his chapel, or 
9 



130 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

preaching-place, where he read prayers, preached, and 
administered the sacraments every Sunday when he 
was in London, as a church. This also is significant. 
About two months later he wrote another letter to 
the same clergyman, the burden of whose correspond- 
ence seems to have been about heresy and schism. Mr. 
"Wesley in this letter of September 10? 1756, again 
gives his explanation of schism and heresy, and says : 

" I well know heresy is vulgarly defined, ' a false 
opinion touching some necessary article of faith;' 
and schism, 4 a causeless separation from the true 
Church.' But I keep to my Bible, as our Church in 
the sixth article teaches me to do. Therefore, I 
cannot take schism for a separation from a Church, 
true or false, because I cannot find it is ever so taken 
in Scripture. The first time I read the term there is 
1 Cor. 1 ; I meet with it again, chap, xi, 18. But it 
is plain, by schisms in both places is meant, not any 
separation from the Church, but uncharitable divis- 
ions in it. For the Corinthians continued to be one 
Church ; and, notwithstanding all their strife and 
contention, there was no separation of any one party 
from the rest with regard to external communion. 
It is in the same sense the word is used, chap, xii, 25. 
And these are the only places in the New Testament 
where it occurs. Therefore, the indulging any un- 
kind temper toward our fellow-Christians is the true 
scriptural schism. 

" Indeed, both heresies (which are also works of 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 131 



the flesh, and consequently damnable, if not repented 
of) and schisms are here mentioned by the apostle in 
very near the same sense, unless by schisms be meant 
those inward animosities which occasioned heresies, 
that is, outward divisions and parties. So that while 
one said, ' I am of Paul ; another, I am of Apollos ; ' 
this implied b?>th schism and heresy. So wonderfully 
have later ages distorted the words heresy and schism 
from their scriptural meaning ! Heresy is not in all 
the Bible taken for ' an error in fundamentals,' or in 
any thing else ; nor schism for any separation made 
from the outward communion of others. Therefore, 
both heresy and schism, in the modern sense of the 
words, are sins that the Scripture knows nothing of." * 

The question of the possible separation of the 
Methodists, or rather of Wesley, from the State 
Church was exciting much attention, and, no doubt, 
Wesley himself was compelled to consider the ques- 
tion ; and it is evident from his definition of schism 
tli at he would not have deemed such a separation a 
schismatic movement. 

In the same letter to this English clergyman Mr. 
Wesley meets points in relation to the form of epis- 
copal government possessed by the Established Church, 
lie says : " Concerning diocesan episcopacy there are 
several questions I should be glad to have answered : 
1. Where is it prescribed in Scripture? How does 
it appear that the apostles settled it in all the churches 
* Wesley's Works, Letter to the Rev. Mr. Clarke, Amer. Ed., p. 286. 



132 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

they planted ? How does it appear that they settled 
it in any as to make it of perpetual obligation ? It 
is allowed, ' Christ and his apostles did put the 
churches under some form of government or other ; ' 
but (1) did they put all churches under the same 
precise form ? If they did, (2) can we prove this to 
be the very same which now remains in the Church 
of England?"* 

It is very evident what answer Mr. Wesley would 
give to these questions. They suggest their own 
answers, and show that he continues to hold the 
views before expressed. He has reached a point 
where he now knows that it cannot be proved that 
the apostles established a diocesan episcopacy in all 
the churches, or in any, or that they made any form 
of church government of perpetual obligation. He 
therefore put the clergyman on the track of con- 
vincing himself by compelling him to adduce the 
evidence in favor of his notion of apostolic episco- 
pacy. 

This does not look like belief in the necessity of 
such an episcopal government as was at that day found 
in the Church of England, and the last question he 
asks suggests the thought that he did not believe that 
the form of government in the Anglican Church was 
precisely the form of polity which existed in the 
apostolic Church. 

About six years later, on-February 19, 1761, when 
* Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., vol. vii, p. 286. 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 133 



Wesley had almost attained the mature age of fifty- 
eight, he wrote for the London Chronicle an answer 
to a Romish tract entitled A Caveat Against the 
Methodists. In this article he says : " I deny that 
the Romish bishops came down by uninterrupted 
succession from the apostles. I never could see it 
proved ; and I am persuaded I never shall." * 

Of course, if he did not believe in the " uninter- 
rupted succession from the apostles " in the Church 
of Rome, he did not believe in any such succession in 
the Church of England. Later in life, in a letter to 
his brother, the Eev. Charles Wesley, he said : " The 
uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which 
no man ever did or can prove." f 

A few months later, under date of April 10, 1761, 
in " A Letter to a Friend," Mr. Wesley answers cer- 
tain questions which had been propounded to said 
friend in regard to Mr. Wesley and his clerical help- 
ers, who were clergymen of the Church of England. 
In the extract, to follow, he quotes the charge that 
they considered it lawful for men to preach who were 
without episcopal ordination, and refers to the fact 
that they gathered congregations here and there 
throughout the country. In the letter Mr. Wesley 
says : " I answer, First, they do gather congrega- 
tions every-where, and exercise their ministerial office 
therein. But this is not contrary to any restraint which 

* Wesley's Works, Journal, Amer. Ed., vol. iv, p. 90. 
f Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 50. 



134 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



was laid upon them at their ordination ; for they were 
not ordained to serve any particular parish. And it 
is remarkable that Lincoln College, (of which Wesley 
had been a fellow), was founded ad propagandam 
Christianam Jldem, et extirpandas hcereses [for 
the propagation of the Christian faith, and to extir- 
pate heresies]. But were it otherwise, suppose a 
parish minister to be either ignorant or negligent of 
his duty, and one of his nock adjures me, for Christ's 
sake, to tell him what he must do to be saved ; was it 
ever the design of our Church that I should refuse 
to do it because he is not of my parish ? ' Secondly, 
they maintain it lawful for men to preach who are 
not episcopally ordained.' In some circumstances 
they do ; particularly where thousands are rushing 
into destruction, and those who are ordained, and ap- 
pointed to watch over them, neither care for nor know 
how to help them. ' But hereby they contradict the 
twenty-third article, to which they have subscribed.' 
They subscribed it in the simplicity of their hearts, 
when they firmly believed none but episcopal ordina- 
tion valid. But Bishop Stillmgfieet has since con- 
vinced them this was an entire mistake. 4 Thirdly, they 
disclaim all right in the bishops to control them in 
any of these matters.' In every point of an indiffer- 
ent nature they obey the bishops, for conscience ' 
sake ; but they think episcopal authority cannot re- 
verse what is fixed by divine authority. Yet they 
are determined never to renounce communion with 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 135 

the Church, unless they are cast out headlong. If it 
be said, ' Kay, but if I varied from the Church at all, 
I would throw off my gown and be a professed Dis- 
senter ' — What! would you profess to dissent when 
you did not? If you would, they dare not do it. 
They love the Church, and therefore keep to all her 
doctrine and rules as far as possibly they can ; and if 
they vary at all, it shall not be a hair's breadth far- 
ther than they cannot help. ' Fourthly, these prin- 
ciples they industriously propagate among their fol- 
lowers.' Indeed they do not ; the balk of their fol- 
lowers know just nothing of the matter. They in- 
dustriously propagate among them nothing but 
inward and outward holiness." * In this letter Mr. 
Wesley is speaking not for himself alone, but also for 
the body of episcopally ordained clergymen who had 
joined him in his work, and he answers the charges, 
indicated in the extract, which have been made against 
them. 

They still belong to the Established Church, and 
have no purpose to separate from it, but they do not 
believe that episcopal ordination is essential to the 
preaching of the Gospel. If Mr. Wesley had been 
answering for himself alone, the probability is that he 
would have put some points even more strongly than 
he did ; but he is replying for others as well as him- 
self, and among the others was included his brother 
Charles, who was still a tolerably good churchman, 

* Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., vol. vii, p. 301. 



136 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



and frequently was shocked by the doings and sayings 
of his more progressive brother. 

As the Rev. Charles Wesley is sometimes quoted as a 
rigid High Churchman, and as no qualification accom- 
panies the statement, it may be well just here to refer 
to some of his methods. When Charles Wesley was 
in London, " he preached during church hours every 
Sabbath, and indulged the societies with a weekly 
sacrament at their own places of worship, so that 
they had no opportunity of attending their several 
churches, nor any motive to attend them. He con- 
ducted divine worship, indeed, according to the order 
of the Church of England, except that lie used ex- 
temporary prayer and sung his own beautiful hymns ; 
but he and the society had no more connection with 
the Established Church than any Dissenting minister 
and congregation had. He was under no episcopal con- 
trol ; the chapels in which he officiated were licensed 
by no bishop ; and the clergy in whose parishes those 
chapels were situated were never consulted as to the 
time and manner of divine service. The uneasiness 
which frequently arose in some of the country societies 
took its origin in part from this state of things. 
They wished to be upon an equality with their met- 
ropolitan brethren, and they were never satisfied, 
either during the life-time of the Wesleys, or after 
their death, till this was conceded to them."* This 
is a fact to which those who claim that Charles 

* Jackson's Life of Charles Wesley, pp. 426, 427. 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 137 

Wesley was so devoted to the regularity of the En- 
glish Church should not close their eyes. He would 
not go quite as far as his brother in some things, but 
he is open to the same charge of irregularity and in- 
consistency ; but he should not be severely blamed for 
either. He was irregular in some matters because of 
the practical necessities which existed, and his incon- 
sistencies were perfectly natural in view of present 
demands and previous education. It will not do, 
however, to parade him as perfectly regular in oppo- 
sition to the alleged irregularity of the Rev. John 
Wesley. 

According to Dr. Porteus, who was made Bishop 
of Chester in 1776, and, on the death of Bishop 
Lowth, translated to the see of London in 1787, both 
John and Charles Wesley had by their actions ceased 
to be good Churchmen, and the Methodists had ceased 
to be a part of the Church of England. 

A friend applied to Bishop Porteus in behalf 
of a Dr. Draper, an episcopally ordained clergyman, 
whom the bishop had prohibited from officiating in 
his diocese, and to this appeal the bishop replied : 

" As I understood that Dr. Draper was what you 
represent him to be, a man of piety and a good 
preacher, it gave me, I assure you, no small pain to 
feel myself under the necessity of excluding him 
from the pulpits of my diocese ; but his conduct 
rendered it in me an indispensable duty. Instead of 
confining himself, which, as a minister of the Church 



13S The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



of England, he ought to have done, to the celebration 
of divine service in places of worship licensed or 
consecrated by his diocesan and authorized by law, he 
chose to become the president of a college and preacher 
in a chapel founded by Lady Huntingdon for the 
purpose of training up lay preachers for conventicles, 
licensed as Dissenting meeting-houses. Lady Hunt- 
ingdon, though a pious woman, was unquestionably 
not a member of the Church of England, but, what is 
strictly and properly so called, a Methodist, profess- 
ing the doctrines of one of the first founders of 
Methodism, George Whitefield, and educating young 
,men to preach those doctrines without episcopal 
ordination. There could not, therefore, be a more 
injudicious and offensive measure, or one more hostile 
to the Church of England, than to become president 
of such a college and the preacher in such a chapel 
founded for such a purpose." * 

Continuing, he says: "What Dr. Draper has done 
is moreover directly repugnant to the canons of the 
Church of England, which prohibit every minister of 
that Church from preaching in any chapel that is 
not sanctioned and allowed by the ecclesiastical laws 
of the realm under very severe penalties ; and were I 
to proceed to extremities, those penalties must be in- 
flicted. But I have taken a milder course. I have 
only excluded from the parochial churches of my 
diocese a clergyman who has separated himself for a 
* Life of Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, p. 267. 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 139 



considerable part of the year from the Established 
Church and set up a Church of his own, neither 
licensed nor consecrated by his diocesan. I neither 
blame Dr. Draper nor any other man for following 
the dictates of his own conscience in matters of re- 
ligion. I would have every man permitted to wor- 
ship God without interruption or molestation in the 
manner he most approves. But, then, let him be 
consistent. Let him not halt between two opinions. 
Let him not vibrate between two modes of worship. 
Let him not be a Methodist in the morning and a 
Church of England man in the afternoon. I never 
can consent that any clergyman in my diocese should 
so divide himself between sectarism and the Estab- 
lishment, between the Church of England and the 
Church of Lady Huntingdon. Let him take his part 
and adhere to it steadily and uniformly throughout." * 
This was the opinion of a bishop who was esteemed 
one of the most liberal-minded prelates of the Church 
of England, and who was considered as too complais- 
ant to the Dissenters. According to him the Meth- 
odists were even then distinct and separate from the 
Church of England. It was one thing to be of the 
Methodists, and another thing to be of the Establish- 
ment. The offense of Dr. Draper was essentially the 
same as that of both the Wesleys. They preached in 
places which were not licensed or consecrated by the 
diocesan. They recognized lay preaching, and they 

* Life of Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, p. 269. 



uo 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



were guilty of " educating young men to preach " 
" without episcopal ordination ; " and in doing these 
things, according to this bishop, they had separated 
"from the Established Church and set up a Church 
of their "own, neither licensed nor consecrated by" 
their " diocesan." 

John Wesley may not always have paused in his 
active career to consider all the legitimate conse- 
quences of his deeds and opinions, for he was accus- 
tomed to do what seemed right at the time, and to let 
the future consequences take care of themselves ; but 
he went on governing the harmony of his life by the 
key-note which Lord King had struck in 174:6, the 
effect of which was intensified by the work of Still- 
ingfleet. On the 8th of June, 1780, John Wesley 
thus wrote to his brother Charles : 

" Head Bishop Stillingfleet's Irenicon, or any im- 
partial history of the ancient Church, and 1 believe 
you will think as I do. I verily believe I have as 
^ood a right to ordain as to administer the Lord's 
Supper. But I see abundance of reasons why I 
should not use that right, unless I was turned out of 
the Church. At present we are just in our place." * 

This was the logic of his inference from Lord 
King's account of the primitive Church and Stilling- 
fleet's Irenicon. Presbyters and bishops were the 
same order, and, therefore, presbyters had the same 
right to ordain. He was a presbyter, and, therefore, 
* Wesley's Works, vol. xii, p. 137. 



"Wesley's Views on Church Government. 141 

he had the right to ordain, though for the present he 
holds that power in abeyance. The ultimate outcome 
of these views will appear hereafter. 

John Wesley still clung to the State Church in 
which he was- born, but he had discarded nearly all 
the peculiar notions it had been supposed to hold. 
As Tyerman says, " Notwithstanding his strong affec- 
tion for the Church of England, we find Wesley, al- 
most at the commencement of his Methodist career, 
entertaining doubts respecting its ecclesiastical pol- 
ity." * 

Once revering the State Church as the only proper 
ecclesiastical organization, he came to regard it as 
" a merely political institution." From believing in 
three clerical orders by divine right, he came to believe 
that bishops had no higher order than presbyters. 
From believing in diocesan episcopacy as an apostolic 
institution, he came to deny that it had been estab- 
lished by the apostles. From believing that episcopal 
government was of divine authority, and that there 
could be no true church without that form of govern- 
ment, he came to believe that there was no particular 
form of government enjoined by the New Testament 
as of perpetual obligation, but that any church was 
at liberty to choose any form of polity, or to change 
its polity according to circumstances. From believ- 
ing that the only true church was episcopal, he came 
to look upon non-episcopal bodies as legitimate 

* Tyerman's Life of Wesley, vol. i, p. 508. 



142 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



churches. From believing that no one could perform 
the functions of the ministry without episcopal ordi- 
nation, he came to believe that others had just as good 
a right, and that even those who were commonly 
called laymen might have the right to preach. From 
believing that there could be only one true church, 
he came to believe that those who separated from the 
Church of England were not schismatics. 

It is true that he personally adhered to the Church 
in which he had been reared, but it is also true that 
he created a great ecclesiastical organization which 
was distinct from and independent of the Church of 
England, and that he provided for the perpetuation 
of organic Methodism after his decease, as may be 
seen, among other things, by the deed of declaration 
which Wesley executed on the 28th of February, 
1 784, and which a few days afterward was enrolled in 
the high court of chancery. This deed, providing 
for the control of the property and defining the nat- 
ure and powers of the Conference, legally cemented 
and perpetuated the Methodist organization. 

That Wesley meant Methodism to continue to have 
an organic existence is evident from his ''Thoughts 
upon Some Late Occurrences," which he wrote on 
the 3d of March, 1785. In it he says : " You see, 
then, in all the pains I have taken about this abso- 
lutely necessary deed, I have been laboring, not for 
myself (I have no interest therein), but for the whole 
body of Methodists, in order to fix them upon such 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 143 

a foundation as is likely to stand as long as the sun 
and moon endure." * 

Another evidence of his intention that organic Meth- 
odism should continue after his death is the provision 
which he made, later in the same year, for the perpet- 
uity of the Methodist system in America, which was 
then beyond the domain of the Church of England. 

As far as he personally was concerned, he did not 
consider that he had withdrawn from the Established 
Church, for he had never formally resigned, neither 
had he been formally expelled ; but he was, neverthe- 
less, the head of a great ecclesiastical organization 
which was distinct from the State Church and over 
which the national Church had never exercised control. 
He had not withdrawn from the Established Church, 
but the ecclesiastical organism which he had created 
was already separate. He spoke for himself personally 
when he said that he had not separated. The Meth- 
odist body, though controlled by him, had become 
something which could be spoken of as distinct from 
himself. It obeyed him while he lived, but when lie 
died it would be free ; and what then ? 

In view of the facts of history, it requires a great 
deal of credulity to believe that he expected that after 
his death the Methodists would be absorbed by the 
Anglican Church. In providing, for example, for 
the perpetuation of British Methodism, with its Con- 
ference, its preaching places and other property, and 

* Methodist Magazine, 1785, p. 269. 



144 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



its peculiar ecclesiastical machinery, Wesley must 
have felt the probability, and practical certainty, that 
after his death English Methodism would not con- 
sider that it owed any allegiance to the national 
Church. Indeed, the very fact that he so carefully 
made these arrangements when he had reached such 
an age that he knew he could not much longer be with 
them, leads to the inference that he believed they 
would be separate, and that after his departure he 
desired them to be distinct. However, we are hardly 
left to conjecture, for Charles Wesley, in a letter, 
written August 14, 1785, to his brother John, says to 
him, "You told me they would separate by and by." 
So that, on the testimony of his own brother, John 
Wesley had foreseen that the Methodists would be a 
separate body. But the most remarkable fact is that 
he, who, from the time of reading Lord King, had 
believed he had as much power to ordain as an} r 
bishop in England, did at last put that power into 
operation, and did ordain a number of ministers ; thus 
providing for the administration of the sacraments, 
and so giving the Methodists all that was considered 
absolutely necessary for a church organization. He, 
therefore, not only provided for the perpetuity of the 
organism, but also provided ordained ministers, giving 
the Methodists power to have the sacraments among 
themselves and independently of the clergy of other 
Churches. 

John Wesley, on the 19th of August, 1785, reply- 



Wesley's Views on Church Government. 145 

ing to his brother's letter from which we have just 
quoted, would not admit that he had separated from 
the national Church, and said : " I have no more de- 
sire to separate than I had fifty years ago. I still 
attend all the ordinances of the Church, at all oppor- 
tunities; and I constantly and earnestly advise all 
that are connected with me so to do. When Mr. 
Smyth pressed us to separate from the Church he 
meant, ' Co to church no more.' And this was what 
I meant twenty-seven years ago when I persuaded 
our brethren not to separate from the Church." 

But Charles pronounced the act of ordaining to be 
practical and actual separation from the Church of 
England, and the celebrated jurist, Lord Mansfield, 
said, " Ordination is separation." * 

After Wesley had ordained some of his preachers, 
it was suggested that this would lead to separation. 
In meeting the suggestion that the Methodists might 
entirely separate from the State Church after his 
death, he quotes the question and gives his answer as 
follows : " ' But, for all this, is it not possible there 
may be such a separation after you are dead ? ' Un- 
doubtedly it is. But what I said at our first Confer- 
ence, above forty years ago, I say still : i I dare not 
omit doing what good I can while I live, for fear of 
evil that may follow when I am dead.' " \ 

* Tyerman's Life of John Wesley, vol. iii, p. 447. 
f Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 678; Tyer man's Life of Wesley, 
vol. iii, p. 442. 
10 



146 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

He does not deny that that is the tendency. He 
does not deny that that will be the result. He ad- 
mits that undoubtedly it is a possibility. The whole 
answer carries with it the inference that he recog- 
nized the probability of Methodist independence, and 
yet he took the steps that tended in that direction 
because they seemed to him to be his present duty, 
and he did what he thought was his duty without 
regard for the consequences. He sees the possibility, 
and does what tends to make it an actuality. 

In view of the foregoing facts it seems plain that 
Wesley foresaw that the Methodists would be a dis- 
tinct organization, and hence made provision for the 
perpetuity of the Methodist organism, and also pro- 
vided for the administration of the sacraments by 
their own ministers ; for, if he had not desired them 
to be thus distinct, it would seem natural that he would 
not have made any such provision. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 147 



CHAPTER IV. 

WESLEY'S RELATION TO THE EPISCOPATE OF AMERICAN 
METHODISM. 

THE Rev. George Whitefield, one of the earliest 
associates of Wesley in the evangelical movement 
called Methodism, made a number of evangelistic 
tours through the British colonies extending along 
the Atlantic coast, from 1738 until he died at New- 
bury port, Mass., in 1770. 

This graduate of Oxford University and regularly 
ordained clergyman of the Church of England 
brought to America a new type of liberal Christian- 
ity. Though a clergyman of the Established Church, 
he was at the same time a Methodist evangelist, and 
had fellowship with Christians of all denominations ; 
affiliating just as readily with Presbyterian ministers 
as he did with the episcopally ordained clergy of the 
national Church. He co-operated with Christian 
believers no matter what their name. Though he 
did not plant, he was the forerunner of Wesleyan 
Methodism. He was the John the Baptist who pre- 
pared the way for the Methodist body which was to 
take permanent possession. He did not organize the 
results of his labors, but he prepared the people of 
the colonies, and especially in the middle and south- 



148 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



era sections, for the occupancy of the country by the 
organized Methodism which had taken form under 
the executive genius of the Rev. John Wesley. 

Wesleyan Methodism in America had its origin at 
least as early as 1766. Then the colonies were 
sparsely settled, but the rapid movements of the 
itinerant preachers, so well suited to the conditions 
then existing, soon carried the practical teachings of 
Methodism to the very outposts of American civili- 
zation. Wesley had sent preachers from time to 
time, and had governed or directed the work in 
America through one whom he appointed, and who 
was called a general assistant. Under this superior 
officer were other assistants, who had immediate di- 
rection of the rest of the preachers. 

At one time Francis Asbury occupied the position 
of general assistant, and at a later day Mr. Wesley 
sent Thomas Rankin to fill the place. These general 
assistants exercised a power in America similar to 
that which Wesley exerted in England, but they 
acted in subordination to him, and all the Methodists 
in America cheerfully recognized Wesley's authority 
and promptly obeyed his commands. 

When the War of the Revolution broke out direct 
relations with Wesley were for a time broken, but 
the American Methodists still retained their allegiance 
to him. Some of the Methodist preachers of English 
birth returned to England, but Francis Asbury, 
though an Englishman, remained. Among those 



Wesley and the Amekican Episcopate. 149 



who left was the general assistant, Thomas Rankin, 
and, as they were without such an officer, and as As- 
bury had previously filled that position, the Ameri- 
can Methodist preachers requested Asbury to resume 
the powers of that relation. He consented, and dis- 
charged the functions of that office and generally ad- 
ministered the affairs of the American Methodists 
during the disturbed period of the war and the unset- 
tled times which followed. At a later date Wesley 
formally appointed him general assistant, and that 
position he held up to the latter part of 1784. The 
Revolutionary War greatly interfered with the work 
of the different denominations, and when the war 
closed the churches generally were in a sadly shattered 
condition. 

With the independence of the country the author- 
ity of the Church of England was destroyed, and its 
prestige was greatly weakened. The Church of En- 
gland no longer had control, and the English ecclesi- 
astical laws did not apply. 

Most of the churches which had belonged to the 
national Church of England were without clergymen. 
Most of the clergy were supported by English money, 
and, as most of them were Tories and would pray for 
King George, they either ceased to exercise the func- 
tions of the ministry or fled from the country. 

Bishop White, speaking of the unfortunate condi- 
tion of the remains of the Church of England, says: 
"To add to the evil, many able and worthy ministers, 



150 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



cherishing their allegiance to the king of Great 
Britain, and entertaining conscientious scruples 
against the use of the Liturgy under the restriction 
of omitting the appointed prayers for him, ceased to 
officiate. Owing to these circumstances the doors of 
the far greater number of the Episcopal churches 
were closed for several years. In the State (Penn- 
sylvania) in which this work is edited there was 
through its whole extent but one resident minister 
of the Church in question — he who records the 
fact." * 

Again he says : " In Maryland and Virginia there 
were many of the clergy whose connections with their 
flocks were rendered by their personal characters de- 
pendent wholly on the Church establishment, and, of 
course, fell with it. Again, many worthy ministers 
entertained scruples in regard to the oath of alle- 
giance to the States, without the taking of which they 
were prohibited from officiating by laws alike impo- 
litic and severe. But it must be seen that scruples of 
this sort were of another nature than the' question 
here stated for consideration. In the Northern States 
there were no such laws, but the clergy gener- 
ally declined officiating on the ground of their eccle- 
siastical tie to the Liturgy of the Church of England. 
As they were generally men of respectable characters, 
the discontinuance of the administrations had an un- 
happy effect on the Church, and is here mentioned as 

♦White's Memoirs, p. 17. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 151 

one cause contributing to the low state in which we 
were left by the Kevolutionary War." * 

Winterbotham, in 1793, said : " The inhabitants of 
Wilmington, Xewbern, Edenton, and Halifax dis- 
tricts in North Carolina, making about three-fifths of 
the State, once professed themselves of the Episcopal 
Church. The clergy in those districts were chiefly 
missionaries, and in forming their political attach- 
ments at the commencement of the late war personal 
interest and real interest, or perhaps a conviction of 
the impolicy of opposing Great Britain, from whence 
they derived their salaries, induced them almost uni- 
versally to declare themselves in favor of the British 
government, and to emigrate. There may be one or 
two of the original clergy remaining, but at present 
they have no particular pastoral charge ; indeed, the 
inhabitants in the districts above mentioned seem now 
to be making the experiment whether Christianity 
can exist long in a country where there is no visible 
Christian Church. The Baptists and Methodists have 
sent a number of missionary preachers into these dis- 
tricts, and some of them have large congregations. It 
is probable that one or other of these denominations, 
and perhaps both, may acquire consistency, and estab- 
lish permanent churches." f 

The biographer of Bishop Hobart adds his picture 
of the state of affairs resulting from the War of In- 

* White's Memoirs of Protestant Episcopal Church, 2d Ed. pp. 76, 77. 
f Winterbotham's History of the United States, vol. iii, p. 211. 



152 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



dependence. Keferring to the time when the war 
began, he says : 

"At the North, in a few of the larger cities — 
Philadelphia, New York, Newport, and Boston — con- 
gregations had by this time arisen with means suf- 
ficient to support their own clergy, but beyond these 
towns all were missionaries, paid and supported 
either wholly or in part from abroad. The evils of 
such a condition were obvious. At the South legal 
Establishment and at the North foreign funds made 
the clergy independent of the laity, and the laity 
unconcerned about the Church. From the want of 
an episcopate, there was no spiritual jurisdiction, 
either to confer orders, administer confirmation, or 
enforce discipline. The Church had consequently 
neither point of union nor power of increase ; its 
ministers were chiefly foreigners, and, therefore, alien 
to the feelings of the people ; while of such as went 
for orders it was estimated that one fifth perished 
amid the perils of the journey. 

" To a Church thus constituted (if Church it might 
be termed) the consequences of the Revolution were, 
for a time, fatal. Identified by popular prejudice 
with the royal government, it fell in public opinion 
with it. In Virginia and Maryland, where the 
Church had been strongest — numbering in the former 
alone above one hundred clergymen — the popular fury 
was immediately directed against it as the stronghold 
of the royal party. The clergy were driven from their 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 153 

cures, the churches shut up or sold, and, in defiance 
of law, the glebe-lands eventually declared forfeited. 
In the North an equal fate awaited. The support of 
the missionaries being withdrawn, they, too, were soon 
forced to follow; the churches closed, and the con- 
gregations scattered. So utter, in short, was this dis- 
persion that for some years (to give an individual 
illustration) the present Bishop of Pennsylvania was 
the sole remnant of the clergy in the whole of that 
province. The War of the Revolution may therefore 
in truth be said to have desolated the Church, for out 
of that struggle it came forth with deserted temples, 
broken altars and alienated property ; deprived of its 
ablest clergy by death or exile, destitute of means 
of ordaining others, and laboring under the popular 
odium of attachment to monarchical principles and a 
foreign government, and that government the very one 
from whose thralldom the country had just freed itself. 
Never, certainly, was any portion of the Christian 
Church in a state of greater depression, and, what with 
internal weakness and external hostility, there seemed 
but little chance of its ever rising out of it." * 

The same writer gives a closer insight into the in- 
ternal condition when he continues : " To add to 
these accumulated sorrows, the few churches that 
remained had no tie of brotherhood among them- 
selves ; the exernal bond being removed, they fell 
apart like a rope of sand ; there was neither union, 

* Memoirs of. Bisho.p .ffobqrt, jp : 78. , 



151 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

nor government, nor strength ; each stood in its own 
state of helpless independency, fast tending — to use 
the expressive language of Burke — toward ' the dust 
and powder of individuality.' In this state of desti- 
tution, to crown all other evils, the anarchy of heresy 
began to creep in among them. One of the most 
influential churches in Boston, and the oldest in the 
Northern States — tracing back to the time of Charles 
II, openly professed Unitarianism, and new mod- 
eled its liturgy accordingly. Churchmen in South 
Carolina were for adopting a nominal episcopacy. 
The Legislature of Maryland entertained the plan of 
themselves supporting the ordainers, and Socinian 
principles were avowed by some among the members 
of the Church and suspected among many." * 

This was the condition of affairs as far as the 
Church of England in America was concerned. As 
a Church it had fallen to pieces; only the ruins were 
left. As a general thing, the Church and its clergy, on 
account of their connection with England, were not 
popular with the people. Few clergymen were left 
in the churches that remained, and the masses who 
had looked to this branch of the clergy for baptism 
and the communion were left without the sacraments. 
Dr. Hawks, a clergyman, speaking of the year 1777, 
says : " The sacraments were no longer administered 
in many of the parishes," f and Dr. White remarks 

* Memoirs of Bishop Hobart, p. 80. 

f Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 148. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 155 



that " after the fall of the Establishment a consider- 
able proportion of the clergy continued to enjoy the 
glebes — the law considering them as freeholds dur- 
ing life — without performing a single act of sacred 
duty, except, perhaps, that of marriage. They knew 
that their services would not have been attended." * 

Dr. Hawks, speaking of the Church of England in 
Virginia, where she had been specially strong, says : 
" When the contest was over she came out of the 
war with a large number of her churches destroyed 
or injured irreparably, with twenty-three of her 
ninety-five parishes extinct or forsaken, and of the 
remaining seventy-two thirty-four were destitute of 
ministerial services ; while of her ninety-eight cler- 
gymen twenty-eight only remained who had lived 
through the storm." f 

Bishop White has testified that the Church of En- 
gland " was becoming more and more unpopular with 
some, because it was not considered as promoting 
piety, and, with these and others, because they thought 
the provision for it a useless burden on the commu- 
nity ; " J and the Rev. Mr. Jarratt, a Virginia cler- 
gyman, has stated that " most of the clergy preached 
what was little better than deism." 

At the close of the Revolutionary War the Amer- 
ican Methodists were probably the most compact and 

* Bishop White's Memoirs of the Church, Second Ed., p. 16. 
f Bangs's Original Church of Christ, pp. 114, 115. 
% Bishop White's Mem., pp. 75, 76. 



156 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



best organized religious body in the country, and pre- 
sented a marked contrast in this respect with the dis- 
integrated remains of the Church of England. In 
1777, notwithstanding the trouble and difficulties occa- 
sioned by the invasion and the moving armies, they 
had fifteen widely spread circuits, thirty-six itinerant 
preachers, and not fewer than 6,968 full and accred- 
ited members.* Just after the surrender of Lord 
Cornwallis they had thirty circuits, fifty-nine preach- 
ers, T and 11,785 members; so that they had made a 
great increase in the midst of hostilities.f Shortly 
after the treaty of peace, which was signed on the 
3d of September, 1783, and which recognized the in- 
dependence of the United States, they had forty-six 
circuits, eighty-three preachers, and 14,988 members.^ 

This was a compact and, we may say, the only 
thoroughly organized body in the United States, with 
preaching places scattered in city and country, with 
preachers going almost every-where, not loosely and 
without system, but in relation to the ecclesiastical 
body or Conference to which they belonged, and 
which met annually under the control of Wesley's 
general assistant, who was the head of all. 

Thorough as was this religious organization it did 
not profess to authorize these preachers to administer 
the sacraments. In this they followed the advice of 
Mr. Wesley. The Methodist people generally went 
to the clergy of the Church of England for baptism 

* Minutes for 1777. \ Ibid., 1782. \ Ibid., 1784. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 157 

and the Lord's Supper, and in Virginia they were 
greatly assisted in this matter by the Rev. Devereux 
Jarratt and the Rev. Archibald McRoberts, regular 
clergymen of the Established Church, who gave en- 
couragement to the Methodist preachers and adminis- 
tered the sacraments to their people. These were 
exceptional cases, and for their affiliation with the 
Methodists they had to suffer somewhat in their own 
denomination. During the war the Rev. Mr. 
McRoberts left the English Church and became a 
Presbyterian.* The Rev. Mr. Jarratt " was looked 
upon with an evil eye by the Established clergy." 
Dr. Bennett remarks that " he had but little inter- 
course with them, though he occasionally attended 
their conventions. At one held in Williamsburg in 
1774 he was treated so unkindly, and heard the doc- 
trine of Christianity so ridiculed, that he determined 
to attend no more." " He kept this resolution until 
1785, when he was present at one in Richmond ; but 
he was so coldly received that he remained only a few 
hours, and then rode home." f 

The war, however, had so affected the clergy and 
the prospects of the churches remaining among the 
ruins of the Establishment that the Methodists were 
almost entirely left without the sacraments, and a 
question of practical and present importance was 
forced upon them for decision. They ought to have 
the sacraments. How could they secure them ? 
* Bennett's Memorials of Methodism in Virginia, p. 59. \Ibid., pp. 62, 63. 



158 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

They could do loDger depend upon the clergy of the 
English Church, for there were not enough of them, 
even if they had been willing to meet the demand. 
They could not get episcopal ordination, for there was 
no bishop in the country. They could not look to 
the Church of England, for it had no longer any 
power in the country. They could not trust to what 
might come out of the ruins of the Established 
Church, for no one could tell whether any thing 
would ever come out of them ; and as the prejudices 
of the people were strongly against that which had 
been a part of the British government, it was exceed- 
ingly doubtful whether these remains would be or- 
ganized into a permanent Church. Even if such an 
organization should be effected do one could tell when 
it would take place, and present necessities had to be 
met. For the Methodist preachers to receive ordina- 
tion from a non-episcopal body, if under the circum- 
stances that had been possible, would have been, in 
the estimation of High Churchmen, no better than if 
the Methodist preachers had ordained themselves. 
The only question that seemed to be left was whether 
they would ordain themselves or administer the sac- 
raments without ordination. The sacramental ques- 
tion had, indeed, caused some discussion prior to the 
war. Some thought the Methodist preachers were by 
their position entitled to administer the sacraments. 
Others were influenced by what they deemed the ne- 
cessities of the times. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 159 

Robert Strawbridge, the first Methodist preacher 
in Maryland, did administer the sacraments, as doubt- 
less did one or two others at an early day. Mr. As- 
bury records in his Journal, under date of December 
23, 1772, an account of a Conference where the fifth 
question discussed was, " Will the people be content- 
ed without our administering the sacraments?" As- 
bury makes the following note under this question : 
" J. K. [John King] was neuter ; Brother S. [Robert 
Strawbridge] pleaded much for the ordinances ; and 
so did the people, who appeared to be much biased 
by him. I told them I would not agree to it at that 
time, and insisted on our abiding by our rules. But 
Mr. B. [Richard Boardman (?)] had given them their 
way at the quarterly meeting held here before, and I 
was obliged to connive at some things for the sake of 
peace." * 

The next year Wesley sent over Thomas Rankin 
to be his general assistant in control of American 
affairs, and " clothed Mr. Rankin with powers supe- 
rior to any which had been vested in his predecessors 
in office" f 

At the Conference held in 1773, over which Mr. 
Rankin presided, the question of administering the 
sacraments came up and was discussed. Robert 
Strawbridge, who had founded Methodism in Mary- 
land, so strenuously maintained his right to adminis- 

* Asbury's Journal, vol. i, p. 38. 

f Bangs's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. i, p. 80. 



160 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



ter the sacraments to those who chose to receive them 
from him that the Conference made a concession in 
his case. Asbury records the decision as follows : 
" No preacher in our connection shall be permitted to 
administer the ordinances at this time, except Mr. S., 
and he under the particular direction of the as- 
sistant. 1 ' * 

It will be observed that, as regular preachers, it is 
not said they have no right to administer the sacra- 
ments, but that they shall not "be permitted "to do 
so "at this time." It was also decided that the au- 
thority of Mr. Wesley should extend to the preachers 
and people in America, and that they should be gov- 
erned by the Discipline that prevailed in England. 
The agitation in regard to the sacraments was re- 
newed at a number of the subsequent Conferences 
without any change in the decision against the 
preachers administering the sacraments. 

At last, in 1779, a crisis was reached. A Confer- 
ence was held on the 28th of April in Kent County, 
Del., to accommodate Mr. Asbury. This was attend- 
ed by the ministers north and east of the Potomac. 
On the 18th of May another Conference was held 
in Fluvanna County, Ya., and to this the Southern 
preachers went. This was the " regularly appointed " 
session, but, as already suggested, it did not contain 
all the preachers. 

The question of the sacraments had been postponed 

* Asbury's Journal, vol. i, p. 56. 



"Wesley and the American Episcopate. 161 

by the Conference of 1778 to the session of 1779, so 
that it came up legitimately at Fluvanna. In the 
discussion it was urged as a reason why the preachers 
should now administer the sacraments that "the Epis- 
copal Establishment" had been dissolved. The 
following questions and answers have been pre- 
served in the manuscript Journal of the Rev. Philip 
Gatch, one of the members of the Fluvanna Con- 
ference : 

" Ques. 14. What are our reasons for taking up the 
administration of the ordinances among us? 

" Ans. Because the Episcopal Establishment is now 
dissolved, and, therefore, in almost all our circuits 
the members are without the ordinances — We believe 
it to be our duty. 

" Ques, 19. What form of ordination shall be ob- 
served to authorize any preacher to administer? 

" Ans. By that of a presbytery. 

" Ques. 20. How shall the presbytery be ap- 
pointed ? 

u Ans. By a majority of the preachers. 

" Ques. 21. Who are the presbytery ? 

" Ans. P. Gatch, R. Ellis, James Foster, and, in 
case of necessity, Leroy Cole. 

" Ques. 22. What power is vested in the presbytery 
by this choice ? 

"Ans. 1. To administer the ordinances themselves. 
2. To authorize any other preacher or preachers ap- 
proved of them by the form of laying on of hands. 
11 



162 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



" Ques. 23. What is to be observed as touching the 
administration of the ordinances, and to whom shall 
they be administered ? 

"Ans. To those who are under our care and dis- 
cipline. 

" Ques. 24. Shall we rebaptize any under our care ? 
"Ans. No. 

" Ques. 25. "What mode shall be adopted for the 
administration of baptism ? 

" Ans. Either sprinkling or plunging, as the parent 
or adult shall choose. 

" Ques. 26. What ceremony shall be used in the 
administration? 

" Ans. Let it be according to our Lord's command, 
Matt, xxviii, 19 — short and extempore. 

" Ques. 27. Shall the sign of the cross be used ? 

" Aiis. No. 

" Ques. 28. Who shall receive the charge of the 
child, after baptism, for its future instruction ? 

" Ans. The parent or persons who have the care 
of the child, with advice from the preacher. 

" Ques. 29. What mode shall be adopted 
administration of the Lord's Supper? 

" Ans. Kneeling is thought the most proper ; but, 
in cases of conscience, may be left to the choice of 
the communicant. 

" Ques. 30. What ceremony shall be observed in 
this ordinance ? 

"Ans. After singing, praying, and exhortation, 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 163 

the preacher delivers the bread, saying, 4 The body 
of our Lord Jesus Christ,' etc., after the Church 
order." * 

Freeborn Garrettson, one of the most prominent 
Methodist preachers of that day, thus condenses the 
story : " In May, 1779, the regular Conference was 
held, according to appointment, in the Brockenback 
Church, Fluvanna County, Virginia. The question, 
' Shall we administer the ordinances ? ' was again 
agitated and was answered in the affirmative. Some 
of the oldest preachers were therefore set apart to 
administer the sacraments. The troubles were such 
that we of the North did not attend." f 

The decisions of this Conference, which they have 
given in the form of question and answer, furnish a 
very interesting study. First, there are indications 
of liberality of view in permitting choice as to the 
mode of baptism and also of receiving the sacrament 
of the Lord's Supper. Second, they did not intend 
to impose their administration upon others, but to 
administer to those under their own care and disci- 
pline. Third, they did not propose episcopal, but 
presbyterial, ordination. 

They formed their presbytery in the most natural 
way. They " set apart," as Garrettson remarks, " some 
of the oldest preachers." These were literally the 
elders or presbyters. The three elders, Gatch, Ellis, 

* Dr. Lee's Life and Times of the Rev. Jesse Lee, pp. 79, 80. 
\ Garrettsorrs Semi-Centennial Sermon. 



1C4 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

and Foster, " and, in case of necessity, Leroy Cole," 
composed the presbytery. 

This presbytery ordained one another, probably 
calling in Cole, so that each one would be ordained 
by three, and afterward ordained such of the preach- 
ers then present " as were desirous of receiving ordi- 
nation."* 

In this Conference there were eighteen preachers, 
and they were the pastors of about four thousand 
members. Their need was great and their responsi- 
bility was equally great. Who can prove that under 
the circumstances these preachers were to be blamed 
or that they were wrong ? Who can demonstrate that 
they had no right to do as they did % It is the duty of 
all Christians to receive the sacraments, but the people 
generally were without them, and unless some measure 
like this was resorted to they would continue to be 
without them. 

But it may be said that none but ministers could 
ordain. If that were so, still it remains that these 
were de facto ministers, and in the estimation of their 
people were de jure ministers. They were to their 
members just as truly ministers as the ministers 
of other denominations were to their congrega- 
tions. They were not laymen who occasionally 
left their business to deliver a religious address or 
preach a sermon in an emergency. They were rec- 
ognized as duly called and dedicated to the ministry 

* Stevens's History of Metiiodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, p. 60. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 165 

of the Gospel, and they exclusively devoted them- 
selves to this holy calling. 

If such men were fit to preach the Gospel as their 
life-work, and to gather congregations and exercise 
pastoral care over them, w T hy were they not fit to 
baptize children, and to present to their people the 
memorials of the broken body and the shed blood of 
Jesus Christ, whose teachings from time to time they 
ministered to their heads and hearts ? If they were 
not under ordinary conditions, why were they not 
amid this extraordinary state of affairs — when there 
was great need throughout the whole country, and 
especially in the southern section ? 

If they had believed in the necessity of episcopal 
ordination, and had wanted it, it was impossible for 
them to have obtained it, for, as before mentioned, 
there was not a Protestant bishop anywhere in the 
land, while the scattered remains of the Church of 
England w r ere in confusion and did not know what 
to do for themselves. 

But suppose they were laymen, and not ministers 
of the Gospel ; were their people to remain without 
the privileges of the Christian Church ? Were their 
children to go without the rite of baptism? Were 
their members to be prevented from participating in 
the communion ? If they were nothing more than 
laymen, under such conditions of extreme distress 
necessity would cover and justify their act. The 
maxim, " Necessity knows no law," is true in ecclesi- 



166 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



astical affairs as well as in other things, and this law of 
necessity had long been admitted by ecclesiastical 
writers of the English Church. They admitted, for 
example, the validity of lay baptism in time of 
necessity. 

Tertullian said : " Are not those of us who are 
laics priests ? It is written, ' He hath made us kings 
and priests to God and his Father.' The authority 
of the Church has appointed the difference between 
the order and the people, and the dignity is sacred 
where there is an assembly of the order ; so where 
there is no assembly of the ecclesiastical order you 
both offer [that is, in the eucharist], and baptize, mid 
are alone a priest to yourself. Moreover, where 
there are three, there is a church, although they 
be laymen. For each one lives by his own faith, nor 
is there respect of persons with God, since not the 
hearers of the law, but the doers, are justified by 
God, as the apostle says. Therefore, if you have in 
yourself the rights of a priest where necessity requires 
it" etc. ..." God would have all of us so circum- 
stanced as to be every-where ready to perform Ms 
sacraments."* 

Thus Tertullian held that in case of necessity 
even laymen could administer the sacraments, and 
that " where there are three, there is a church, al- 
though they be laymen" and consequently, being a 

* Trans, in Goode's Divine Rule of Faith and Practice. London, 1855. 
vol. ii, p. 288. 



Wesley anb-the American Episcopate. 167 

church, could, in time of necessity, organize a church 
and establish and ordain a valid ministry. Bishop 
Jewel quoted this opinion of Tertullian approv- 
ingly, and after indorsing it as authority reasoned 
from it. 

Many of the older writers of the Anglican Church 
uttered sentiments that justify the action of these 
preachers, even if they were nothing more than 
laymen. 

If there was any defect in their action it was that 
the ministers present were only a minority of the 
Methodist ministers then in the United States. It is 
true the Fluvanna was the " regularly appointed " 
Conference, and that if the others did not come, but 
preferred to meet at a different place, that was their 
own responsibility. Still, it was not the action of the 
majority of those who really belonged to the Confer- 
ence. The Northern ministers, with the general 
assistant at their head, did not approve of the course 
of their Southern brethren. The result was a divis- 
ion of sentiment which was not conducive to har- 
mony. 

The Fluvanna Conference decided to meet the 
next year at Baltimore, on the 24th of April, 1780. 
This was considered the regular Conference for the 
year, but only two of the Virginia Conference, 
namely, P. Gatch and E. Ellis, were present. They 
endeavored to harmonize the two sections. The 
Conference, however, adopted the following: 



168 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



" Ques. 20. Does this whole Conference disapprove 
the step our brethren have taken in Virginia ? 
" Ans. Yes. 

" Ques. 21. Do we look upon them no longer as 
Methodists in connection with Mr. Wesley and us till 
they come back? 

"Ans. Agreed." 

They also passed the following : 

" Ques. 13. Will this Conference grant the priv- 
ilege to all the friendly clergy of the Church of 
England, at the request or desire of the people to 
preach or administer the ordinances in our preaching- 
houses or chapels ? 

" Ans. Yes." 

Nevertheless an attempt was made to adjust the 
difficulty, as we see by the following questions and 
answers : 

" Ques. 22. Shall brothers Asbury, Garrettson, and 
Watters attend the Virginia Conference, and inform 
them of our proceedings in this, and receive their 
answer ? 

"Ans. Yes. 

" Ques. 26. What must be the conditions of our 
union with our Virginia brethren? 

u Ans. To suspend all their administrations for one 
year, and all meet together in Baltimore." * 

The Southern preachers met at Manakin Town, 
Powhattan County, Virginia, on the 9th of May, 

* Minutes for 1780. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 169 



1780,* and the committee of reconciliation from the 
Baltimore Conference met them and entered into 
negotiations to preserve the unity of American 
Methodism. The delegation was cordially received 
by the Virginia ministers, and Mr. Watters, one of 
the committee, says : " We found our brethren as 
loving and as full of zeal as ever, and as fully deter- 
mined on persevering in their newly adopted mode ; 
for to all their former arguments they now added 
(what with many was infinitely stronger than all the 
arguments in the world) that the Lord approved and 
had blessed his own ordinances, by them adminis- 
tered the past year."t 

With such convictions on the one side and strong 
opposition on the other the prospect for reconcilia- 
tion was not nattering. So the Rev. J esse Lee, one 
of the preachers of that day, writes : " At that time 
Mr. Asbury had to exert all his powers and to use 
all possible prudence in order to bring about a settled 
peace and union among all the preachers. The most 
influential preachers in that separation in favor of the 
ordinances were Philip Gatch, John Dickins, and 
James O'Kelly. 

" After much contention and distress Mr. Asbury pro- 
posed to the Southern preachers a plan for union, which 
was this: that they should not administer the ordinances 
for a twelve month, and that they should all then 
meet together in conference at Baltimore, and in the 

* Asbury's Journal, p. 283. f Life of Watters. 



170 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

course of the year they would write to Mr. Wesley 
in England, and lay their situation before him and 
get his advice. The plan took with the Virginia 
preachers, and they consented to the proposal. By 
this prudent step a division was prevented, and a 
blessed union restored."* 

It will be observed that the Northern preachers did 
not deny the right of the others to administer the 
sacraments, but they were all under the authority of 
Mr. Wesley, and had agreed to obey the same disci- 
pline as that which governed the English Conference, 
and evidently, in view of these facts, both parties 
agreed to submit the matter to their superior. 

Says a recent writer, the Rev. W. P. Harrison, 
D. D. : " Looking back upon these events of more than 
a century ago, we are astonished at the patience and 
long-suffering of these men of Grod. They knew that 
Mr. Wesley did not understand their surroundings. He 
could not see, as they saw it, the necessity for ordained 
ministers, that the service of the Lord's house ' might 
be perfect, wanting nothing.' In England, where the 
form of religion was familiar to the great majority of 
the people, the deprivation was comparatively slight ; 
and in most cases it was a question of propriety 
whether to receive the ordinances at the hands of 
men who were not scriptural shepherds of the flock, 
but mere hirelings of the state. In America it was a 
question of receiving the ordinances through the new 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 73. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 171 

arrangement, or not at all. There was no alternative. 
No man could tell how long the war might last, and 
with each new convert to the Gospel the issue pre- 
sented itself — no baptism, no Supper of the Lord. 
Other denominations taunted the Methodists with 
this state of things, and the humiliation of such an 
attitude was great in the extreme. The Presbyte- 
rians might have been reminded of the fact that 
John Calvin had never been ordained at all (Bayle's 
Dictionary, art. ' Calvin ') ; and the Baptists could 
only point backward a hundred and forty years to 
Koger Williams and Ezekiel Holliman for the begin- 
ning of a ' succession of ministerial orders ' (Benedict's 
Hist, of the Baptists, p. 441). The Episcopalians, 
indeed, might have been reminded of the fact that 
Thomas Cranmer, the father of the English Refor- 
mation, had never been ordained deacon, priest, or 
bishop, but from the status of a layman stepped at 
once to the office of an archbishop." * 

Efforts, however, are now to be made to acquaint 
Mr. Wesley with the true condition of affairs in 
America — the breaking up of the Established Church, 
the flight of many of the clergy, the impossibility of 
the masses obtaining the sacraments. 

Two days after the agreement between the com- 
mittee and the Virginia Conference Asbury made the 
following entry in his Journal : " Rest this day to 

* Dr. Harrison's High- Churchman Disarmed. Nashville, ]886, 
pp. 174, 175. 



172 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



write to Mr. Wesley." * No doubt at this writing he 
explained the difficulties to Mr. Wesley, and strongly 
urged immediate action. 

On the 23d of May he says : " I have labored to 
get our friends well affected to the Episcopal Church ; 
what could I do better when we had not the ordi- 
nances among ns ? " f Again, on the 16th of Septem- 
ber of the same year, he makes this entry in his Jour- 
nal : " Wrote to Mr. Wesley at the desire of the Vir- 
ginia Conference, who had agreed to suspend the ad- 
ministration of the ordinances for one year." $ In a 
foot-note inserted in his printed Journal under the 
above record, Asbury corrects a mistake, made by Dr. 
Whitehead in his Life of Wesley, in the following 
words : " It is in that work stated that had Mr. Wes- 
ley obtained the consent of the American preachers 
and people, he might have sent ministers regularly 
ordained to the society in that part of the world. The 
truth is that the American Methodists, both ministers 
and people, wished to have such ministers among 
them, that they might partake, like other Christian 
societies, of the ordinances of the Church of God ; 
and when ministers did thus come they received them 
generally and joyfully. I will further presume that 
Mr. Wesley received few letters from America in 
which that subject was not pressed upon him." It is 
therefore more than probable that Mr. Wesley re- 

* Asbury's Journal. May 12, 1780, p. 284. 

\ Ibid., May 23, 1780, p. 287. % Ibid., Sept. 16, 1780, p. 309. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 173 



eeived many communications from the American 
Methodists urging him to secure for them ordained 
ministers, or make some arrangements by which they 
could obtain the sacraments. But Mr. Asbury, being 
the general assistant, was by virtue of his position the 
most influential of all those who wrote. 

He informed Mr. Wesley of " the extreme uneasi- 
ness of the people's minds for want of the sacra- 
ments ; that thousands of their children were unbap- 
tized, and the members of the societies in general had 
not partaken of the Lord's Supper for many years." * 
Again, on the 20th of March, 1784, Asbury writes 
another letter to Wesley, in which he says : " Dear 
sir, we are greatly in need of help. A minister and 
such preachers as you can fully recommend will be 
very acceptable. Without your recommendation we 
shall receive none. But nothing is so pleasing to me, 
sir, as the thought of seeing you here, which is the 
ardent desire of thousands more in America." f 

In the meantime Wesley, notwithstanding the in- 
terruption occasioned by the war between the colonies 
and the mother country, had not forgotten his fol- 
lowers in America. He was perplexed, indeed, about 
the future of Methodism, both in Europe and in 
America. He had attained his eighty-first year, and 
felt that his time on earth was exceedingly short. * 

* Life of Wesley, by Coke aud Moore. First Amer. Ed., Philadel- 
phia, 179:5, p. 351. 

f Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 682. 



174 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



.Possibly lie saw that the Methodists must either be 
independent or disintegrate. His brother Charles a 
little later said : " After my brother's death what 
will be their end ? They will lose all their influ- 
ence and importance ; they will turn aside to vain 
janglings ; they will settle again upon their lees, 
and, like other sects of Dissenters, come to noth- 
ing." * 

John Wesley saw the danger, but he was not so 
easily disturbed as Charles. Naturally he must have 
been reluctant to have the great organization which 
he had constructed go to pieces. He was a man of 
action, and, instead of wringing his hands and mourn- 
ing over the possibilities of the future, he went to 
work to devise a plan to prevent the fulfillment of 
his brother's prophecy. Doubtless he saw that the 
Methodist body would continue to exist after he was 
gone, but he felt it his duty while he had authority 
to provide against disaster and disruption. 

Hence on the 28th day of February, 1784, he exe- 
cuted the Deed of Declaration, and by this cemented 
and, so to speak, gave a corporate existence to Meth- 
odism in Great Britain and Ireland, and provided for 
the perpetuity of British Methodism. 

It was less than one month after this date that As- 
bury wrote his last letter, above mentioned, again call- 
ing Wesley's attention to the pressing needs of his 
people in America. Asbury's suggestion that Wes- 
* Memoirs of Charles Wesley, p. 423. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 175 

ley should come to America, of course, could not 
command a moment's attention. In that day of slow 
and uncomfortable traveling it was out of the ques- 
tion for one past eighty to think of crossing the 
Atlantic. 

He could not go, but he had been appealed to, and 
it was necessary for him to do something, and that 
with great promptness. He had a new condition of 
affairs to consider. A part of his organization was no 
longer under the British flag. It was in the United 
States of America. 

His English Methodism was one thing; American 
Methodism was another. British Methodism was 
under English law, but American Methodism was in 
a foreign country where British rule had been broken. 
English Methodism was under the shadow of the 
State Church, but in America there was no State 
Church, and all denominations were equal before the 
law. English Methodists could receive the sacra- 
ments from the Wesleys and other episcopally or- 
dained clergymen, or go to the parish churches, but 
American Methodists were not so provided with or- 
dained ministers, and there were very few churches 
to go to, and very few of those that remained were 
supplied with clergymen to administer the sacra- 
ments. 

Doubtless he was informed of the extent of the 
ruin of what had been the Church of England, and 
that no organization of the ruins had been effected. 



176 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



He had a very different question to consider from 
that which related to his societies in Britain, and cer- 
tainly he had not been rash in reaching his decision. 
More than four years had passed since the Virginia 
Methodist ministers had agreed to suspend the admin- 
istration of the sacraments, and to submit their case 
to Mr. Wesley. He has been slowly coming to his 
conclusion, but now acts quickly. The English Con- 
ference met at Leeds this year (1784), on the 27th day 
of July, and adjourned on the 3d of August. At this 
Conference Mr. Wesley announced his intention of 
sending Dr. Coke and some other preachers to Amer- 
ica, and Mr. Richard Whatcoat and Mr. Thomas 
Yasey offered themselves as missionaries for that pur- 
pose and were accepted."" * 

The Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., was a man of 
wealth and a scholar. He graduated at Oxford Uni- 
versity and became a clergyman of the Church of 
England. While he was acting as a minister of the 
Church of England in the South Petherton Parish, 
Somersetshire, he was greatly influenced by the relig- 
ious conversation of a Methodist layman, and a 
marked earnestness soon manifested itself in his min- 
istrations. The result was that a clamor was raised 
against him as a " Methodist," though, at that time, 
lie had no connection with Wesley or any of his soci- 
eties ; he was admonished by his bishop and dismissed 
by his rector ; mobs of his own parishioners menaced 
*Life of Wesley, by Coke aud Moore. Philadelphia, 1793, p. 352. 



Wesley and the Amebic an Episcopate. 177 



him, and he was " chimed " out of his Church, and 
found a refuge in the Methodist Conference.* 

Richard Whatcoat has been described as " one of 
the saintliest men in the primitive itinerancy of Meth- 
odism." f 

George Shadford, who had been a preacher in 
America, and who understood the needs of the Amer- 
ican work, urged Whatcoat to go with Coke. At 
first he hesitated, but, after observing a day of fasting 
and prayer for divine guidance, he offered himself 
for the toil and the sacrifice. Thomas Vasey was of 
a wealthy family, but gave up wealth and the society 
of his kindred to submit to the hardships of the 
Methodist itinerancy. These were the men that 
Wesley selected and appointed to go to America. 

But how could this meet the difficulty? Dr. Coke 
was the only ordained man in the number, and one 
man would be entirely inadequate to the task of admin- 
istering the sacraments to tens of thousands of commu- 
nicants scattered along the Atlantic coast and stretch- 
ing back hundreds of miles into the western wilderness. 
The great need was for ordained men, and yet, if these 
three ministers went as they were, the American Meth- 
odists would be little better off than before. Something 
more must be done. What could be done ? Wesley 
had believed for nearly forty years that presbyters 
and bishops were the same order, and that presbyters 

* Stevens's History of the Metlwdist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, pp. 
151-155. \Ibid. p. 157. 

12 



178 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

had the same right as bishops to ordain. Besides 
this, for some time he had felt that he was a bishop as 
well as a presbyter. He had no doubt about his 
right to ordain, but he had been restrained from ex- 
ercising this right by his interpretation of English 
law and his respect for the regulations of the State 
Church. Realizing the need for ordained ministers 
he naturally thought of inducing some bishop of the 
Church of England to ordain some of his preachers, 
and years before he had endeavored to secure episco- 
pal ordination for some of bis preachers that they 
might go to America. 

It will be remembered that on the 12th of May, 
1780, just after the agreement of the Virginia min- 
isters to cease administering the sacraments for a 
year, so that the matter might be referred to Mr. 
Wesley, Asbury wrote to Wesley, no doubt stating 
the case very fully. The effect that Lad on the chief 
overseer of the Methodists may easily be imagined. 
That very year he applied to the eminent Dr. Lowth, 
Bishop of London, to ordain ministers for America, 
but the good bishop declined to ordain them. 

Later in the year, namely, on the 10th day of Au- 
gust, 1780, the Rev. John Wesley sent the following 
letter to Bishop Lowth : 

" My Lord : Some time since, I received your 
lordship's favor, for which I return your lordship 
my sincere thanks. Those persons did not apply to 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 179 

the society, because they had nothing to ask of them. 
They wanted no salary for their minister ; they were 
themselves able and willing to maintain him. They 
therefore applied, by me, to your lordship, as mem- 
bers of the Church of England, and desirous so to 
continue, begging the favor of your lordship, after 
your lordship had examined him, to ordain a pious 
man, who might officiate as their minister. 

" But your lordship observes, ' There are three 
ministers in that country already.' True, my lord ; 
but what are three, to watch over all the souls in that 
extensive country ? Will your lordship permit me to 
speak freely ? T dare not do otherwise. I am on the 
verge of the grave, and know not the hour when I 
shall drop into it. Suppose there were threescore of 
those missionaries in the country, could I in con- 
science recommend these souls to their care? Do 
they take any care of their own souls ? If they do (I 
speak it with concern !) I fear they are almost the 
only missionaries in America that do. My lord, I do 
not speak rashly ; I have been in America, and so 
have several with whom I have conversed ; and 
both I and they know what manner of men the far 
greater part of these are. They are men who have 
neither the power of religion nor the form ; men 
that lay no claim to piety, nor even decency. Give 
me leave, my lord, to speak more freely still ; per- 
haps it is the last time I shall trouble your lordship. 
I know your lordship's abilities and extensive learn- 



180 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

ing. I believe, what is far more, that your lordship 
fears God. I have heard that your lordship is un- 
fashionably diligent in examining the candidates for 
holy orders ; yea, that your lordship is generally at 
the pains of examining them yourself. Examining 
them! In what respect? Why, whether they un- 
derstand a little Latin and Greek, and can answer a 
few trite questions in the science of divinity ! Alas, 
how little does this avail ! Does your lordship exam- 
ine whether they serve Christ or Belial? whether 
they love God or the world ? whether they ever had 
any serious thoughts about heaven or hell ? whether 
they have any real desire to save their own souls, or 
the souls of others? If not, what have they to do 
with holy orders ? and what will become of the souls 
committed to their care ? My lord, I do by no means 
despise learning ; I know the value of it too well. 
But what is this, particularly in a Christian minister, 
compared to piety ? What is it in a man that has no 
religion ? 'Asa jewel in a swine's snout.' 

" Some time since, I recommended to your lord- 
ship a plain man, whom I had known above twenty 
years, as a person of deep, genuine piety, and of un- 
blamable conversation. But he neither understood 
Greek nor Latin ; and he affirmed, in so many words, 
that he believed it was his duty to preach, whether 
he was ordained or no. I believe so too. What 
became of him since, I know not; but I suppose he 
received Presbyterian ordination, and I cannot blame 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 181 

him if he did. He might think any ordination better 
than none. 

" I don't know that Mr. Hoskins had any favor to 
ask of the society. He asked the favor of your lord- 
ship to ordain him, that he might minister to a little 
flock in America. But your lordship did not see 
good to ordain him ; but your lordship did see good 
to ordain, and send into America, other persons 
who knew something of Greek and Latin, but who 
knew no more of saving souls than of catching 
whales. 

u In this respect, also, I mourn for poor America ; 
for the sheep scattered up and down therein. Part 
of them have no shepherds at all, particularly in the 
northern colonies ; and the case of the rest is little 
better, for their own shepherds pity them not. They 
cannot, for they have no pity on themselves. They 
take no thought or care about their own souls. 

"Wishing your lordship every blessing from the 
great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, I remain, my lord, 
" Your lordship's dutiful son and servant." 

This letter shows that Wesley had solicited ordina- 
tion for preachers for America, that he argued from 
his personal knowledge of some of the Church mis- 
sionaries and the needs of the people in that distant 
country, and yet, though those whom he proposed 
did not ask for support from the Society for Propa- 
gating Christian Knowledge in Foreign Parts, and 



182 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



though they applied " as members of the Church of 
England " and desired " so to continue," he could not 
persuade the bishop to give them ordination. 

There was, therefore, no use looking to the bishops 
of the Established Church for the requisite assistance. 
Further, in the very year to which we refer, and at 
this very time, Dr. Seabury, of Connecticut, was in 
England seeking consecration as a bishop for Con- 
necticut. He had arrived in London on the 7th of 
July, 1783, and yet up to this time had not secured 
consecration. He was baffled by one objection after 
another. He was informed that he could not be or- 
dained unless lie took the oatli of allegiance and su- 
premacy, which as an American citizen he could not 
do. At last it' was discovered that the bishops would 
expose themselves to the statute of praemunire, if 
they ordained him without an act of Parliament. 
Dr. Seabury then sought the passage of an act by 
Parliament, but when the act was passed it merely 
authorized the Bishop of London to admit foreign 
candidates to the orders of deacon and priest, but 
gave no permission to consecrate a bishop for any of 
the American States.* So the doctor was unsuccess- 
ful again, and, in fact, never did receive consecration 
from the English bishops. 

It is possible that Wesley knew of Dr. Seabury's 
visit, his difficulties, and his failures. If he did, he 
must have realized how utterly impossible would be 

* Beardslev 1 ? Life of Bp. Seabury. Third Ed., Boston, 18S2, p. 133. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 183 

his mission if lie now asked ordination for his preach- 
ers. The same legal objections would be urged ; and 
even if the English bishops would have ordained 
some of his American preachers if they had come to 
England it was practically impossible for them to 
come. But there was no reason to believe they would 
ordain them if they did cross the ocean. 

Indeed, a Methodist had come from America and 
had been refused ordination. This was Cornelius 
Winter, who accompanied Whitefleld on his last voy- 
age to America. After Whitefield's death he re- 
turned to London with the hope of obtaining ordina- 
tion. He had letters, including one from Wright, 
the governor of Georgia, recommending him to in- 
fluential persons in England for ordination, that he 
might return and prosecute Whitefield's favorite 
plans of missionary labor among the negroes and In- 
dians. Applications were made to the Bishop of 
London, and an interview was secured, but the prelate 
repulsed him as a Whitefield Methodist. Benjamin 
Franklin, who was then in London representing 
American affairs, used his influence for him, but all 
was in vain. That the colonies were rebellious 
seemed to have some effect, but the worst objection 
was that Winter was Method istic. Said the bishop : 
" You have been a preacher with Mr. Whitefield, 
which is illegal. When you return to America let 
me know ! " To which Winter replied, " My lord, 
I cannot think of returning without ordination." 



1U 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



"Very well,'' rejoined the bishop, with a significant 
bow; "and thus they parted till the day of judg- 
ment." * 

Wesley might have turned to the Dissenters, but 
every churchman would have said that a Dissenting 
ordination was no better than one Wesley could him- 
self give. Wesley, however, had long before reached 
the point where he could recognize the validity of a 
presbyterial ordination, and he believed he had as 
good a right to ordain as those who were called 
bishops. 

The year before, an event had occurred which may 
have had something to do in determining his course. 
Tyerman expresses it so well that we will quote ver- 
batim from him. He says: " The Methodists under 
the care of the Countess of Huntingdon stood in the 
same relation to the Church of England that the 
Methodists under Wesley did. They varied, not 
dissented, from the Church. Recently, however, 
there had been a formal and avowed secession. 
Many of Lady Huntingdon's chapels were supplied 
by ordained clergymen, and, among others, a large 
building in Spafields, previously known as the Pan- 
theon. This edifice stood in the parish of Clerken- 
well, of which the Rev. William Sellon was minister. 
Mr. Sellon claimed the right of appointing ministers 
and clerks to the Spafields chapel ; also the right of 
himself to officiate within its walls as often as he 

* Stevens's History Qf Methodism, vol. ii, p. 65. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 185 



liked. He further demanded the sum of £40 a year, 
in consideration of his permitting two of the count- 
ess's preachers to occupy the said chapel ; also all the 
sacramental collections ; and four collections yearly, 
for the benefit of the children of the charity school 
of Clerkenwell parish ; and, finally, that, for the due 
performance of these demands, the proprietors should 
sign a bond for £1,000. 

" Of course, the proprietors refused to comply with 
such demands. Mr. Sellon then instituted a suit in 
the consistorial court of the Bishop of London, and 
cited the Revs. Messrs. Jones and Taylor, the offici- 
ating clergymen, and both of them ordained, to an- 
swer for their irregularity in preaching in a place 
not episcopally consecrated, and for carrying on 
divine worship there, contrary to the wish of the 
minister of the parish. Verdicts were obtained 
against them. The question was then removed to 
the ecclesiastical courts ; and was again decided 
against the ministers of the countess, and in favor of 
Mr. Sellon, who obtained the name of Sanballat. 

" This was a momentous matter. Hitherto Ro- 
maine, Yenn, and others had preached for the count- 
ess ; but now, as ordained clergymen, in danger of 
prosecution, they had to withdraw their services ; and 
some of the most important chapels were left without 
supplies. The crisis was serious. The countess took 
counsel with her friends, and, at length, it was de 
termined that Messrs. Wills and Taylor should for. 



186 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



mally secede from the Church of England, and 
should take upon themselves to ordain others ; both 
of them had received episcopal ordination themselves, 
both were scholars and able preachers, and Mr. Wills 
had married Miss Wheeler, the countess's niece. 
Accordingly, these two ministers issued an address 
to the archbishops and bishops of the Church of 
England, t stating that, because they could not, as 
clergymen of the Established Church, continue preach- 
ing to their present congregations without ' know- 
ingly and willfully opposing the Church's laws,' they 
had resolved to secede peaceably, and to put them- 
selves under the protection of the Toleration Act. 

" Here then was a formal Methodist secession from 
the Established Church. But more than this, on 
March 9, 1783, these two seceding clergymen began 
to do what Wesley did eighteen months afterward — 
they held their first ordination. This was in Spa- 
fields chapel. The service commenced at 9 A. M., 
and lasted about seven hours. The names of the six 
young men then set apart to the Christian ministry 
were, Thomas Jones, Samuel Beaufoy, Thomas Can- 
non, John Johnson, William Green, and Joel Abra- 
ham Knight. During the service Mr. Wills ad- 
dressed the congregation, assigned his reasons for 
believing that he had the right to ordain ; namely, 
that presbyters and bishops were the same order, and 
that, as he and Mr. Taylor had been ordained pres- 
byters, they had really been ordained bishops, and 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 187 

had as much right to ordain others as any bishop in 
the land. 

'•"Wesley was acquainted with all this, though he 
never mentions it. For aught he knew, an action 
might be commenced against himself and the other 
clergymen preaching in the City Road, West Street, 
and elsewhere, similar to that which had been suc- 
cessfully prosecuted against the Countess of Hunting- 
don's preachers at Spafields. It was time to look 
about. He held exactly the same views respecting 
presbyters and bishops that had been publicly avowed 
by Messrs. Wills and Taylor." * 

What was to be done had to be done quickly. Wes- 
ley was in declining years, and the American Method- 
ists were restless. It was a question between letting 
the American preachers ordain themselves, or their 
receiving the recognition and authorization implied 
in ordination through the acknowledged head of 
Methodism. 

As already stated, he had refrained from exercising 
the right he believed he possessed for England, where 
all the parishes were provided with clergymen and 
the country had a State Church, but the case of Amer- 
ica was different. The colonies had become inde- 
pendent of the mother country, and the United States 
had no national Church. 

He felt that he would not be violating any law if 
he ordained ministers for America. English law had 

*Tyerman's Wesley, vol. iii, pp. 430-432. 



188 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

no control, and the Church of England had no sway in 
the United States. He felt that he was free to do 
for the United States what he did not feel free to do 
for England. He determined to ordain Whatcoat and 
Vasey, and so send three ordained men to America. 

Mr. Pawson, one of Wesley's prominent preachers 
in England, says: "I believe, Mr. Wesley's first 
thought of ordaining arose out of the bishop of Lon- 
don refusing to ordain a preacher for America." * 
His purpose to ordain appears to have been com- 
municated to a few of the preachers when the Con- 
ference met in Leeds in 1784. 

Tyerman says: "Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript 
memoir of Dr. Whitehead, relates that ordination was 
first proposed by Wesley himself in select committee 
of consultation. Pawson was a member and was 
present. He writes : £ The preachers were astonished 
when this was mentioned, and, to a man, opposed it. 
But I plainly saw that it would be done, as Mr. 
Wesley's mind appeared to be quite made up.' " 

It should be remembered that though he allowed 
the preachers in the Conference sessions to debate 
questions with the greatest freedom, and though he 
had a select few with whom he consulted on very 
important matters, his decision was final even against 
a unanimous sentiment in opposition. It is also to be 
remembered that his assertion of his right to ordain 

* Manuscript letter quoted in Tyennan's Life of Wesley, vol. iii, p. 443. 
f Tyerman's Life of Wesley, vol. iii, p. 428. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 189 

was no new assumption adopted after old age had 
brought on imbecility, for he had held it for thirty- 
eight years, and at this time he was a man of great 
mental vigor. Thirty-eight years before, on the 
road to Bristol, Wesley had read Lord King's work 
on the Primitive Church, and that had settled him in 
the conviction that presbyters and bishops were the 
same order, and that, consequently, presbyters had the 
same right to ordain. Now he goes again to Bristol 
to carry out the logical sequence of such views. It 
was not the rash impulse of inconsiderate youth or the 
weak yielding of aged imbecility, but the mature judg- 
ment of nearly forty years' standing and of one who 
had passed the period of ordinary earthly ambition. 

The notes in his Journal are very brief. He had 
been at Newport, and he says, Saturday, August 28 : 
"Being informed the boat would pass at eight, 
we hastened to the New Passage ; but we were time 
enough, for it did not set out till past six in the 
evening. However, we got into the boat about 
seven, and before nine reached Bristol. Tuesday, 31. 
— Dr. Coke, Mr. Whatcoat, and Mr. Yasey came down 
from London, in order to embark for America. Wed- 
nesday, Sept. 1. — Being now clear in my own mind, 
I took a step which I had long weighed in my mind, 
and appointed Mr. Whatcoat and Mr. Vasey to go 
and serve the desolate sheep in America." * 

This is the record he makes in his Journal of the 
* Wesley's Works, Journal, Amer. Ed., vol. iv, p. 602. 



190 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

ordination of Whateoat and Yasey. He says lie 
"had long weighed" this action, and now was clear 
in his own mind. He sends them with full ministe- 
rial powers u to serve the desolate sheep in America " 
who were without the sacraments. Now, who or- 
dained them ? Not Mr. Wesley alone, but Mr. Wes- 
ley assisted by two other presbyters who had re- 
ceived episcopal ordination in the Established Church. 
These men were the Kev. Dr. Coke and the Eev. 
James Creighton.* 

About six years before this, when he was serving a 
parish church, Mr. Creighton thus wrote Mr. Wes- 
ley : " Could I once open a door here for the Meth- 
odist preachers, I should willingly go to any part of 
the globe that God should call me to. Were I near 
you, I should be too happy to fill the place of your 
assistant." f One year before taking part in this ordi- 
nation he had entered the Methodist itinerancy in 
connection with Wesley.^ 

It will be asked whether Wesley, assisted by these 
two presbyters, had a right to ordain these ministers. 
First, it may be well to pause and consider what 
Wesley had been doing in the way of giving author- 
ity to preachers of the Gospel for over forty years. 
During that time he had " chosen and sent " many 
men to preach, and he had set them apart with a for- 

* Tyerman's Life of Wesley, vol. iii, p. 434. 
f Methodist Magazine, 1788, p. 608. 

\ Bishop Simpson's Cyclo. of Methodism. Fourth Revised Ed. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 191 

mality amounting to a practical de facto ordination, 
with the exception of the laying on of hands and the 
authorization to administer the sacraments. Now, if 
he had the right to authorize them to preach, why had 
he not an equal right to authorize them to do full min- 
isterial work % A number of Wesley's preachers had 
for a long time held that, " as divinely called preach- 
ers of Christ's religion," they " might be permitted to 
administer ordinances which that religion solemnly 
enjoined," especially as the Methodists, " in many in- 
stances, had been repelled from the sacramental table 
in the church, and had been driven to the alternative 
of either receiving the Lord's Supper in Dissenting 
chapels (where such an irregularity might be per- 
mitted), or of absolutely committing sin by neglecting 
one of the most important ordinances of the Christian 
system." * And some of the preachers did exercise 
what they believed to be their right to administer the 
sacraments in view of their rank as regular Methodist 
preachers. Thus, in 1760, Charles Wesley wrote to 
his brother : " Three preachers, whom we thought 
we could have depended upon, have taken upon 
them to administer the sacrament without ordina- 
tion, and without acquainting us, or even yourself, 
of it beforehand. Why may not all the preachers do 
the same, if each is to judge of his own right to 
do it ? . . . That the rest will soon follow their 
example I believe, because (1) they think they may 

* Tyermau's Life of Wesley, vol. ii, p. 200. 



192 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

do it with impunity; (2) because a large majority 
imagine they have a right, as preachers, to administer 
the sacraments ; (3) because they have betrayed an 
impatience to separate. . . . Even Mr. Crisp says, 
he would give the sacraments if you bade liim." * 

Now, if Mr. Wesley was right in giving men the 
authority to preach, how could it be wrong for 
him to give them authority to administer the sacra- 
ments ? 

The validity of the ordination of Whatcoat and 
Yasey will appear further from the following con- 
siderations : 

First, because those who ordained were presbyters, 
and presbyters had power of ordination. In the 
early Christian Church the presbyters and bishops 
were the same, and ordaining was done by the 
presbyters. The parity of presbyters and bishops is 
clearly taught in the New Testament. The right of 
presbyters to ordain and the validity of presbyterial 
ordination were admitted by the English reformers 
and the standard writers of the Church of England. 
Mr. Wesley had been convinced by the writings of 
Lord King and Bishop Stillingfleet, and by the New 
Testament, that presbyters and bishops were the same 
order and had the same right to ordain. In giving 
ordination, therefore, he was sustained by the New 
Testament, the practice of the early Christian Church, 
and the teachings of the founders of the Protestant 

* Jackson's Life of Charles Wesley, vol. ii, p. 180. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 193 

Eeformed or national Church of England, and by 
later English writers. 

The ordination was not by a single individual, 
for two other presbyters were associated with him, 
and the demand of the High Churchmen was met by 
the canonical number of three presbyters, all of whom 
took part in the ordination. 

Second, if it be asserted that there must be a 
bishop in order to make an ordination (a point which, 
of course, is not to be admitted), then the answer is 
that the Rev. John Wesley was in fact a bishop. Tak- 
ing the original idea, that every presbyter was a 
bishop, then he, being a presbyter,' was a bishop. 
Taking the secondary idea, that a bishop was a pres- 
byter who presided over presbyters, then he was a 
bishop, for he presided over presbyters ; not only those 
of his preachers who were literally seniors or elders 
because of their age or length of ministerial service, 
but also those who had received episcopal ordination ; 
for among those over whom he presided were those 
whom even a High Churchman would pronounce 
regularly ordained. Taking the word bishop as mean- 
ing overseer, then he was most emphatically a bishop, 
for he was the overseer of a large number of ministers 
and a large number of congregations, both in Europe 
and America. 

One who will turn to the definition of bishop and 

episcopal government which he gave in 1745 will see 

that even then he perceived that he was a true 
13 



194 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



bishop, and that he was exercising episcopal jurisdic- 
tion ; and forty years after that he held the same view, 
and said : u I firmly believe I am a scriptural Ma- 
fcono^ as much as any man in England or in Eu- 
rope." * 

It should be observed, however, that he did not 
consider himself any thing more than a presbyter- 
bishop, and that he viewed the ordination as a presby- 
terial ordination. "We have stated the fact that he 
was a true scriptural bishop merely to meet the de- 
mand of those who think nothing valid but episcopal 
ordination ; but whatever virtue there was in this ordina- 
tion Wesley rested it on the fact that he was a pres- 
byter, and that those who assisted him in ordaining 
were presbyters also. 

But it may be said that this would have been legit- 
imate enough if Wesley had not been a clergyman of 
the Established Church, and had belonged to some 
other body. 

This implies that the party who presents the objec- 
tion concedes that episcopal ordination is not neces- 
sary, and that presbyters can give a valid ordination. 
This being so, we may dismiss the claim for exclu- 
sively episcopal orders, and so simplify the inquiry. 
It would, then, have been a valid ordination, accord- 
ing to the objector, had they not continued in con- 
nection with the Church of England. 

It will be admitted that they were still presbyters, 

* Methodist Magazine, 1186, p. 50. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 195 



and, as far as that goes, they had as presbyters the 
right to ordain. They had not lost their rank, and hence 
had retained all the powers belonging to their order. 

It will be admitted that Mr. Wesley had not been 
formally expelled from the Anglican Church, neither 
had he formally resigned ; but his connection with the 
Church of England was, in fact, more nominal than 
real. He was not a clergyman with parish, and 
he was not actually under the control of any bishop 
of the Established Church. 

According to Bishop Porteus, in the case of Dr. 
Draper,* a minister could not be " a Methodist in the 
morning and a Church of England man in the after- 
noon," and that one who preached "in any chapel that 
is not sanctioned and allowed by the ecclesiastical 
laws of the realm," and who educated young men to 
preach " without episcopal ordination," had " sepa- 
rated himself," and was not " a member of the Church 
of England, but, what is strictly and properly so called, 
a Methodist." Now all this John Wesley had done, 
and, according to this episcopal ruling, no matter what 
Mr. Wesley may have imagined as to his relation to 
the State Church, he had separated himself from the 
Church and belonged to the Methodists. 

This was equally true in regard to Coke and 
Creighton, the two presbyters who assisted in the or- 
dination of Whatcoat and Yasey. It is true that they 
had not been formally excluded, and that they had not 

* Life of Partem, pp. 267, 269. 

v 



196 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

formally resigned, but they were guilty of the sup- 
posed irregularities to which Bishop Porteus refers, 
and which he deemed practical separation. It is true 
they held a sort of relation to the Established Church, 
but they were actual Methodist itinerants in connection 
w T ith Mr. Wesley. They were not serving parishes as 
Church of England clergymen, but were assisting Mr. 
Wesley as ordained Methodist preachers, and were 
connected with the Methodist Conference. 

However, it makes little difference how these in- 
volved matters may be regarded. As a matter of 
fact, Wesley was the chief of a great religious organ- 
ization and the head of a great ecclesiastical body, 
with its preachers and congregations ; and, though he 
called himself a presbyter of the Church of England, 
it was as the head of Methodism that he ordained 
ministers for America, and it was because he was the 
head and overseer of Methodism that the two pres- 
byters who assisted him participated in that ordination. 

That his double relation was peculiar may be alleged, 
and that he may have been inconsistent may be ad- 
mitted, without destroying the fact that it was as the 
head of Methodism he ordained Methodist preachers. 
If the authorities of the State Church did not eject 
him there seemed to him no practical reason why he 
should exclude himself. As the Rev. Richard Wat- 
son says: "If its spiritual governors did not choose 
to censure and disown him for denying the figment 
of the uninterrupted succession which he openly said 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. • 197 

1 he knew to be a fable ; ' for maintaining that bish- 
ops and priests were originally one order only ; nor, 
finally, for proceeding to act upon that principle by 
giving orders, it would be hard to prove that he 
was under any moral obligation to withdraw from 
the Church. The bishops did not institute proceed- 
ings against him, and why should he formally re- 
nounce them altogether ? " * 

Third, then the ordination was valid, because Mr. 
Wesley was the proper and recognized authority 
among the Methodists to authorize men to perform 
the functions of the Christian ministry. The article 
of the Church of England which treats " of minister- 
ing in the congregation " is as follows : " It is not 
lawful for any man to take upon him the office of 
public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in 
the congregation, before he be lawfully called and 
sent to execute the same. And those we ou^ht to 
judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and 
called to this work by men who have public authority 
given unto them in the congregation, to call and send 
ministers into the Lord's vineyard." 

According to this article, the authority that can 
call and send a man to preach can also authorize him 
to minister the sacraments. That being the case, 
Mr. Wesley, who had been calling and sending men 
to preach, had also the same right to empower them 
to exercise the full ministerial function. He was the 

* Watson's Life of Wesley, Amer. Ed., 1836, p. 246. 



198 ' The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



one who for nearly half a century " had public au- 
thority given unto " him " in the congregation to call 
and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard," and, 
therefore, according to this article, those ministers 
ought to be judged " lawfully called and sent." 

This authority had been conceded him by common 
consent in the Conference and congregation of Meth- 
odism for nearly fifty years. Wesley did not compel 
them to come to him or stay with him, but they volun- 
tarily came and remained, and acknowledged his au- 
thority. He was the chief and the sole authority that 
ultimately decided questions. He recognized and au- 
thorized the ministers. He appointed them preachers 
and assigned them their places as pastors. The 
peculiar initiation and growth of Methodism made 
him the governing power, and his power was 
acknowledged both publicly and privately. 

He was the head of the ecclesia. He was the 
Church himself. The pope of Kome could hardly 
claim to be the Church more fully than Wesley was 
the Church as far as the congregations of Methodism 
were concerned. Wesley was as much the primate 
of all Methodism in Europe and America as the 
Archbishop of Canterbury was of all England. 

He was the authority in Methodism that had 
power " to call and send ministers into the Lord's 
vineyard," and, according to the principle involved 
in the Anglican article, he was the proper authority 
to empower the same to administer the sacraments; 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 199 

and, therefore, as Whatcoat and Vasey, already preach- 
ers, were by this authority authorized to administer 
the sacraments, their ordination was valid, and those 
who believe in the English article " ought to judge " 
them "lawfully called and sent." As we have al- 
ready seen, this very article was framed so as to rec- 
ognize as valid the ministry of those who had not 
received episcopal ordination. 

Fourth, the ordination of Whatcoat and Vasey 
was valid on the ground of necessity. This reason 
alone would be sufficient. 

That there was extreme necessity for ordained 
ministers among the Methodists in America has been 
fully shown. Wesley had, therefore, before him 
their need and his need. They were without the 
sacraments, and he could not secure episcopal ordina- 
tion for preachers who were willing to go to America. 

It was a case of extremity. The Americans ought 
not to be left in that distress, and the American 
Methodists looked to him as their head to help them. 
Either they must be left amid their distress and di- 
visions to decide for themselves, or the authorization 
must issue from him whom they all revered. 

It was a case of extreme necessity, and the eccle- 
siastical authorities of the Anglican Church had fre- 
quently recognized the justice of this plea. Even 
Sara via, the intimate friend and confidential adviser 
of Hooker, though he maintained that ordinations 
ought to be by bishops, admitted that in cases of neces- 



200 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



sity " a presbyter clearly may ordain presbyters." 
lie also says : " Although I am of opinion that ordi- 
nations of ministers of the Church properly belong to 
bishops, yet necessity causes that when they are want- 
ing, and cannot be had, orthodox presbyters can, in case 
of necessity, ordain a presbyter j which thing, al- 
though it is not in accordance with the order received 
from the times of the apostles, yet is excused by the 
necessity of the case, which, causes that in such a 
state of things a presbyter may be a bishop." * This 
was the candid confession of this Spanish-born Church 
of England divine. Though he maintained the di- 
vine right of bishops, yet he recognized the divinity, 
so to speak, of the law of necessity. The case he 
supposed is the one Wesley had to meet, for no bishop 
could be had. Then, says Saravia, " Orthodox presby- 
ters can, in case of necessity, ordain a presbyter" 
That is what the three presbyters — Wesley, Coke, 
and Creighton — had done. And, says Saravia, such 
an act " is excused by the necessity of the case, which 
causes that in such a state of things a presbyter may 
be a bishop" and so necessity made the presbyter 
Wesley a bishop, and he had, as bishop, the right to 
ordain. If such an extreme High Churchman would 
concede so much it is hardly necessary to look fur- 
ther, but we will cite one other authority. 

Hooker thus states the propositions of certain per- 

* Trans, in Goode's Rule of Faith, vol. ii, p. 277, from Sarav., De- 
fens. Tract, pub. in Lat. in 1611. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 201 

sons : " Now whereas hereupon some do infer that no 
ordination can stand but only such as is made by 
bishops, which have had their ordination likewise by 
other bishops before them, till we come to the very 
apostles of Christ themselves," etc. Eeferring to this, 
lie remarks : " To this we answer that there may be 
sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow or- 
dination made without a bishop. ... As the ordi- 
nary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, 
so it may be, in some cases, not unnecessary that we 
decline from the ordinary ways. Men may be extra- 
ordinarily, yet allowably, two ways admitted unto spir- 
itual functions in the Church. One is when God 
himself doth of himself raise up any whose labor he 
useth without requiring that men should authorize 
them ; but then he doth ratify their calling by mani- 
fest signs and tokens himself from heaven. . . . An- 
other extraordinary kind of vocation is when the 
exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual 
ways of the Church, which otherwise we would will- 
ingly keep : where the Church must needs have some 
ordained, and neither hath nor can have possibly a 
bishop to ordain ; in case of such necessity, the ordi- 
nary institution of God hath given oftentimes, and 
may give, place." * 

This great Anglican authority, though he preferred 
episcopal ordination, admitted "that there may be 
sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow or- 

* Hooker's Eccl. Pol, book vii, chap, xiv, § 11. 



202 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

dination made without a bishop." But what could 
be a more pressing urgency than the condition of the 
Methodists in America ? He admits that " in some 
cases " it may be " necessary that we decline from the 
ordinary ways." Surely Wesley had reached such a 
case. Hooker further concedes that men may be 
"admitted unto spiritual functions in the Church" 
" without requiring that men should authorize them ;" 
for example, " when God himself doth of himself 
raise up any whose labor he useth ; " when, as in the 
case of many of the Methodist preachers, God " doth 
ratify their calling by manifest signs and tokens," as 
he did in the conversion and moral transformation of 
tens of thousands under their ministry. According 
to this passage from Hooker, such men were qualified 
to administer the sacraments without any human 
ordination. 

The second exception which Hooker allows is 
" when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to 
leave the usual ways," " where the Church must needs 
have some ordained, and neither hath nor can have 
possibly a bishop to ordain." Then the ordinary in- 
stitution is to give way. This was precisely Wesley's 
case, and the law of necessity, even according to An- 
glican authorities, justifies him in his course. 

Hooker also says, in his third book : " Unto the 
complete form of Church polity much may be requi- 
site which the Scripture teacheth not, and much 
which it hath taught become unrequisite, sometime 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 203 

because we need not use it, sometime also because 
we cannot. In which respect, for mine own part, 
although I see that certain Reformed Churches, the 
Scottish especially and French, have not that which 
best agreeth with the sacred Scripture, I mean the 
government that is by bishops, inasmuch as both those 
churches are fallen under a different kind of regi- 
ment ; which to remedy it is for the one altogether 
too late, and too soon for the other during their pres- 
ent affliction and present trouble.* This their defect 
and imperfection I had rather lament in such a case 
than exagitate, considering that men oftentimes, with- 
out any fault of their own, may be driven to want 
that kind of polity or regiment which is best, and to 
content themselves with that which either the ir- 
remediable error of former times or the necessity of 
the present hath cast upon them." f 

The Methodists had the right to have the sacra- 
ments administered by their own ministers, but we 
present the law of necessity because that was what 
determined Wesley's action, and Wesley, as a presby- 
ter at the head of Methodism, was conscious of the 
possession of the right to ordain, though he had long 
hesitated to use it. 

He had not used it for England because of his old 
predilection for the Establishment and his extreme 

* The Civil War in France. The first part of Hooker's work was 
licensed to the press March 9, 1592-3. 

f Hookers Eccl. Pvl, book iii, chap, xi, § 16. 



201 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



interpretation of English law ; but he felt that now, 
especially under the pressure of necessity, he could 
grant ordination for America, where there was no 
Established Church and where English statutes did 
not apply. 

There is a fifth reason for considering the ordina- 
nation of Whatcoat and Vasey valid, and that is the 
right which springs from the true idea of ordination. 
The difficulty with some who reason on this subject 
is their notion that in ordination there is some mys- 
terious influence or miraculous power imparted, and 
that this descends through the touch of those who re- 
ceived it from others, who in turn received it through 
an unbroken line stretching back to the apostles. 

Wesley said, " The uninterrupted succession I 
know to be a fable which no man ever did or can 
prove ; "* and we have shown that Church of England 
writers have admitted in substance that the succession 
might be interrupted, and that then valid ordination 
could be given by those who were not in the episco- 
pate, and that, in an emergency, even laymen would 
constitute a church and, consequently, could ordain a 
ministry. If then, the succession was ever broken, 
or could be broken, and yet there be a true ministry, 
it follows that, whatever propriety a successional 
form may have, it has in it nothing absolutely neces- 
sary. It further follows, if the continuity can be 
broken, and yet there be a valid ministry, that there 

* Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 50. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 205 

is no necessary mysterious successional influence in or- 
dination, for, if there was, at the first break it would be 
forever lost, and there could thereafter never be a valid 
ordination. If broken, a new series would have to be 
begun, and Anglican writers admit that in cases of ne- 
cessity it could be commenced by those who themselves 
did not, on the theory of believers in apostolic succes- 
sion, possess any grace received from the apostles. 
In other words, even according to this theory, ordi- 
nation does not depend upon successional grace. 

Ordination is not, therefore, in a descent of any 
mysterious successional influence that depends upon a 
tactual succession, or any other kind of succession, run- 
ning back to the apostles, or through any number of 
generations, or running back at all. Ordination is 
simply the formal act of elevating an individual into 
an order which carries with it the power to admin- 
ister a sacrament, said act of elevation being done by 
those who in the congregation have the power so to 
elevate. The elevation or ordination is in the formal 
recognition and authorization by the power that has 
the right to choose and send, and this elevation may 
be with much or little form. In other words, ordi- 
nation is not so much in descent as in consent. It is 
not in the descent of any miraculous influence through 
the touch of the hands, but rather in the consent of 
the proper authority in the church, that the individ- 
ual may administer a sacrament, as well as preach the 
Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is on this prin- 



206 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



ciple that the Preface to the Church of England 
Ordinal, speaking of those who received orders, says, 
" they were first called, tried, examined, and known 
to have such qualities as are requisite for the same," 
and " were approved and admitted thereunto by law- 
ful authority." 

In Methodism, John Wesley was " the lawful 
authority ; " he had tried Whatcoat and Yasey, and 
knew that they had the requisite qualities, and his 
authorization, accompanied by prayer and the laying 
on of hands by three presbyters, constituted a legiti- 
mate ordination. 

Bat it may be objected that the service was per- 
formed in a private house. Well, it would be absurd 
to suppose that Wesley could have obtained the 
cathedral church for that purpose, and in the opin- 
ion of High-Churchmen a private room was just as 
good as a Dissenters' chapel. 

The fact is, the ordination was not for England, 
and did not require English publicity. It was not 
for England, but for distant and independent America, 
where the English State Church had no dominion. 

Then the question is one as to deed, not as to place. 
If it be admitted that the ordination itself was valid 
had it been in some other place, for example, the cathe- 
dral, that will be sufficient. Who knows where the 
apostles ordained the elders ? Was it necessary for them 
to go into the temple at Jerusalem, or into an orthodox 
Jewish synagogue % They may have ordained in the 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 207 



" upper room " at Jerusalem, or in a " hired house," 
such as Paul had in Rome. Certainly it was not in 
any great cathedral or splendid edifice with all the 
appointments of a modern church. It might have 
been in the open air or in some secluded spot on the 
summit of a mountain. The place would not make 
any difference, and the ordination in the hired house 
or in the secluded spot would have been just as valid 
as if it had taken place before the multitudes in the 
temple. So Wesley's ordination of Whatcoat and 
Yasey would not lose its validity because of the 
humble place where it was performed. The only 
question is as to the proper authority to give the au- 
thorization. In this instance, Wesley, the recognized 
authority of Methodism, was present with witnesses, 
and that was sufficient for the purpose. 

We have already mentioned that Dr. Seabury, who 
had been a Church of England clergyman in Connec- 
ticut, was in England seeking consecration as a bishop. 
He had been selected by a secret meeting of about ten 
clergymen, held at a private house in the village of 
Woodbury, Conn., "and it was so secret as to be 
known only to the clergy." This small number, in 
secret conclave, " without a formal election," " se- 
lected two persons, the Rev. Jeremiah Learning and 
the Rev. Samuel Seabury, as suitable, either of them, 
to go to England and to obtain, if possible, epis- 
copal consecration."* The affair was kept secret, 

* Beardsley's Life of Bishop Seabury. Third Ed., 1882, pp. 77, 78. 



208 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



and Dr. Seabury went to England, but, as we have 
seen, could not obtain consecration from the English 
bishops. Failing here, he went Jco Scotland, where 
there were a number of non-juring bishops, who, be- 
cause they had refused to take the oath of allegiance 
to the English sovereign, were by act of Parliament 
deprived of their sees and benefices. They were, 
therefore, bishops without dioceses and under ban. 
From them he received consecration. Whether they 
had a legal right to consecrate, and, consequently, 
whether Dr. Seabury did receive a valid consecra- 
tion, are questions which by some have been an- 
swered in the negative ; but at this point we are not 
concerned with such issues. It is important in this 
connection, however, to note that the consecration 
of Dr. Seabury took place not in a cathedral, but in a 
private house. 

The severe penal laws under which the non-juring 
bishops in Scotland and their clergy fell forbade them 
to officiate except in private dwellings and to a very 
limited number of persons. The law made the limit 
" four persons besides those of the household," though, 
no doubt, in later years more assembled. It was in a 
private dwelling-house, back in Longacre, a narrow 
lane of the city of Aberdeen, " where public carriages 
never passed," and on the upper floor, that the Kev. 
Samuel Seabury, D.D., was consecrated on the Mth 
of November, 1784* 

* Beardsley's Life of Bishop Seabury. Third Ed., pp. 144, 145. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 209 

So, in the city of Bristol, on the 1st of September, 
1784, about ten weeks before, the Rev. John Wesley 
transformed a room in a private house into a chapel, 
for the time being, and, assisted by regularly ordained 
presbyters, ordained Whatcoat and Yasey deacons, and 
the next day elders,* and their ordination in a private 
house stands on as good a basis as the consecration of 
the first Protestant Episcopal bishop for America. 

Whether Wesley regretted his action, in ordaining 
the two ministers for the United States, is sufficient- 
ly answered by the fact that the next year he or- 
dained three of his ministers for Scotland. In his 
Journal is this entry : " 1785, Aug. 1. — Having, with 
a few select friends, weighed the matter thoroughly, 
I yielded to their judgment, and set apart three of 
our well tried preachers, John Pawson, Thomas Han- 
by, and Joseph Taylor, to minister in Scotland." 

He ordained for Scotland on the same principle 
that he did for America, that is, because the Church 
of England had no control in either country. He 
held that he was a bishop and had the right to ordain, 
but he did not exercise that right for England be- 
cause of the existence of the State Church. 

Wesley explains how he came to ordain ministers 
for Scotland. He says: "After Dr. Coke's return 
from America, many of our friends begged I would 
consider the case of Scotland, where we had been la- 
boring for many years, and had seen so little fruit of 
* Stevens's Hist, of the M. E. Church, vol. ii, p. 166. 



210 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

our labors. Multitudes, indeed, have set out well, 
but they were soon turned- out of the way, chiefly by 
their ministers, either disputing against the truth, or 
refusing to admit them to the Lord's Supper, yea, or 
to baptize their children, unless they would promise 
to have no fellowship with the Methodists. Many who 
did so soon lost all they had gained, and became more 
the children of hell than before. To prevent this I 
at length consented to take the same step with re- 
gard to Scotland which I had done with regard to 
America." * 

On the 19th of August, 1785, a few days after he 
had ordained the first ministers for Scotland, in re- 
plying to his brother Charles, Mr. Wesley said : 

"For these forty years I have been in doubt con- 
cerning that question, What obedience is due to 

'Heathenish priests and mitered infidels ?'f 

" I have from time to time proposed my doubts to 
the most pious and sensible clergymen I knew. But 
they gave me no satisfaction. Rather, they seemed 
to be puzzled. 

" Obedience I always paid to the bishops, in obe- 
dience to the laws of the land. But I cannot see 
that I am under any obligation to obey them further 
than those laws require. 

" It is in obedience to these laws that I have never 
exercised in England the power which I believe God 

* Methodist Magazine, \ 786, p. 678. f Charles Wesley's verse. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 211 



lias given me. I firmly believe I am a scriptural 
tntoKOTTog, as much as any man in England, or in Eu- 
rope ; for the uninterrupted succession I know to be a 
fable, which no man ever did or can prove. But 
this does in no wise interfere with my remaining in 
the Church of England." * 

To this Charles replied on the eighth of September, 
and said : " That you are a scriptural ematcoTrog, or 
overseer, I do not dispute ; and so is every minister 
who has the cure of souls." f 

At the Conference of 1786 Wesley ordained 
Joshua Keighley and Charles Atmore for Scotland, 
William Warrener for Antigua, and William Ham- 
met for Newfoundland. In 1787 he ordained five 
others. In 1788, when Wesley was in Scotland, 
John Barber and Joseph Cownley received ordination 
at his hands ; and at the ensuing Conference he or- 
dained seven others, including Alexander Mather. 
On Ash Wednesday, 1789, he ordained Henry Moore 
and Thomas Rankin. 

" This, we believe, completes the list of those upon 
whom Wesley laid his hands. ... In most instances, 
probably in all, they were ordained deacons on one 
day, and on the day following received the ordina- 
tion of elders, Wesley giving to each letters testi- 
monial." $ 

* Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 50. 

f Life of Charles Weslexj, vol. ii, p. 398. 

% Tyerman's Life of Wesley, vol. iii, pp. 441, 442. 



212 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



These facts show that it was not a sudden impulse 
that led him to ordain Whatcoat and Yasey, and that 
he did not subsequently regret it, for he kept on or- 
daining up almost to the time of his death, which 
occurred on the 2d of March, 1791, in his eighty- 
eighth year. 

It may also be added that, though he generally 
used the term society, yet he regarded the Methodist 
society as a Church, and so termed it. As early as 
1749, when, in his Conference, discussing a plan for 
the more intimate combination of his societies, he 
calls them "churches," and referring to their closer 
relation with the society in London, he says, " May 
not that in London, the mother church, consult for 
the good of all the churches ? " * and, in his 
eighty-sixth year, after he had provided for the per- 
petuity of Methodism in Europe and America, and 
had ordained ministers for America and Scotland, he 
says : " I still aver, I have never read or heard of, 
either in ancient or modern history, any other Church 
which builds on so broad a foundation as the Meth- 
odists do ; which requires of its members no con- 
formity, either in opinions or modes of worship, but 
barely this one thing — to fear God and work right- 
eousness." f 

Thus in middle life and in old age he considered that 
the Methodists constituted a Church, and that he, as 

* Minutes of Conferences, London, 1812. vol. i, p. 39. 

f Wesley's Journal, Aug. 26, 1789, Works, vol. iv, p. 729. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 213 

the overseer of the preachers and congregations, was 
their bishop. 

We have seen that Mr. Wesley designated Dr. 
Coke, Mr. Whatcoat, and Mr. Yasey to go to the 
United States, but he intended Dr. Coke to have a 
higher rank than the others. Heretofore he had 
called the preacher who had acted as his agent in 
America, in presiding over the other preachers, a 
general assistant ; but the general assistants were un- 
ordained men. Now, when he sends an ordained man 
with similar powers of supervision, and also the power 
of ordination, he gives him a different title. He calls 
Coke a superintendent. 

An interesting question here arises. Did Wesley 
originally intend any thing more in the case of Dr. 
Coke than a mere appointment ? In other words, did 
'he originally intend to formally consecrate him to the 
office of superintendent? 

Before the Conference met in 1784 it does not 
appear that Wesley intended more than to appoint 
Coke to the charge of the work in America. At the 
Conference it would appear that he said enough to 
his committee of consultation to convince one, at 
least, that he intended ordaining some of the unor- 
dained preachers, but there is no evidence that, at 
that time, he intended any formal setting apart of 
Coke. 

It is probable that it did not occur to Wesley that 
there was any necessity for applying any consecration 



214 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

service to a clergyman who already was of as high an 
order as that which he himself possessed. Why would 
Wesley think it necessary ? He did not mean to 
make Coke higher than himself. Wesley had not 
received any formal consecration to his position as 
overseer of the preachers and people since his ordi- 
nation as a presbyter. Then why should he think it 
necessary for Coke, who was to have a similar office of 
supervision ? He held that presbyters had the same 
right to ordain as bishops, and therefore, as Coke was 
already a presbyter, he needed nothing more for the 
purpose of giving a valid ordination. 

Wesley claimed that he was a true episcoj>os, yet he 
had never had any formal setting apart beyond that 
of his ordination as presbyter, and it was not likely 
that he would think Coke needed any thing further 
of that character, even if Coke, like himself, was to 
be a true episcoj?os.* If he thought a presbyter was 

* " Appointment to the episcopal office by the presbyters of a 
Church is sufficient (as far as the essentials are concerned) to entitle 
a presbyter to perform the duties of the episcopal function " (Rule 
of Faith, by Rev. William Goode, M.A., F.S.A., of Trinity College, 
Cambridge, Rector of Allhallows the Great and Less, London, vol. ii, 
pp. 258, 259). Morinus, one of the most learned divines of the 
Church of Rome, says: "St, Jerome testifies that, at Alexandria, 
from the time of Mark the evangelist to Dionysius, that is, for the 
space of nearly two hundred years, the bishops were inaugurated 
without any consecration, but the presbyters of Alexandria, when 
their bishop was dead, elected one of Jtheir own order, and belonging 
to their own Church, and placed him upon the higher throne and 
called hini bishop. By which" truly it most clearly appears that 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 215 



a bishop without any further formality, he could not 
have supposed a further service was needed by Coke. 
He must have supposed that his appointment of Coke 
to*the position of superintendent would be all that 
could be required to make him a presiding presbyter 
with power to oversee the work. 

This is the only logical deduction from Wesley's 
premises. With him a presbyter had the same order 
as a bishop, and had the same right to ordain. Coke, 
being a presbyter, met the condition without needing 
any new service of consecration. With Wesley a 
bishop was a presbyter presiding over preachers and 

neither Jerome nor the Alexandrines recognized that character by 
which a bishop is said to be above a presbyter, since no prayer, no 
ceremony, no form of words, was used over the presbyter elected. 
You will say, he mentions none, but it cannot hence be concluded 
that there was none, since it is certain that authors do not always 
relate every tiling that takes place. This indeed is true, but the 
scope -and words of St. Jerome do not admit of this objection. For 
he. contends that a presbyter is the same as a bishop, and proves this 
from the peculiar and unusual custom of the Alexandrines, who make 
use of no consecration, no words to consecrate as a bishop the pres- 
byter elected by them, but only place him in the throne and call him 
bishop." He also adduces other arguments to show that this was 
the meaning of Jerome's words, and adds other testimonies to prove 
the fact stated. Again, in the same work, referring to the "Brevi- 
arium " of Liberatns, he says : " It clearly follows from it that, for at 
least two hundred years after Alexander, the presbyters of Alex- 
andria, not the bishops, elected the patriarch; and that neither the 
presbyters, nor the bishops, nor any other persons, laid their hand 
on the person elected." (Quoted in G-oode's Rule of Faith and Prac- 
tice, London, 1855, vol. ii, 259, 260). 



216 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



overseeing their work. Coke, as a superintendent, 
would be this without requiring any thing more. 
With such views Wesley could not think it necessary 
to apply to Coke a service that had never been applied 
to himself. 

Notwithstanding this, it is nevertheless a fact that 
he did "set apart as a superintendent by the imposi- 
tion of " his " hands and prayer (being assisted by 
other ordained ministers,) Thomas Coke, doctor of 
civil law," etc. How can this be explained ? The ex- 
planation is in a letter which Dr. Coke wrote Wesley 
six days after the close of the Conference. It is as 
follows : 

" August 9, 1784. 

" Honored and Dear Sir : The more maturely I 
consider the subject the more expedient it appears to 
me that the power of ordaining others should be re- 
ceived by me from you, by the imposition of your 
hands ; and that you should lay your hands on 
Brother Whatcoat and Brother Yasey for the follow- 
ing reasons : (1.) It seems to me the most scriptural 
way, and most agreeable to the practice of the primi- 
tive churches. (2.) I may want all the influence in 
America which you can throw into my scale. Mr. 
Brackenbury informed me at Leeds that he saw a 
letter from Mr. Asbury, in which he observed that he 
would not receive any person deputed by you, with 
any part of the superintendency of the work invested 
in him, or words which evidently implied so much. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 217 

I do not find the least degree of prejudice in my mind 
against Mr. Asbury ; on the contrary, I find a very 
great love and esteem, and am determined not to stir 
a finger without his consent, unless necessity obliges 
me, but rather to be at his feet in all things. But as 
the journey is long and you cannot spare me often, 
it is well to provide against all events ; and I am sat- 
isfied that an authority formally received from you 
will be fully admitted, and that my exercising the 
office of ordination without that formal authority may 
be disputed, and perhaps, on other accounts, opposed. 
I think you have tried me too often to doubt whether 
I will, in any degree, use the power you are pleased 
to invest me with farther than I believe absolutely 
necessary for the prosperity of the work. 

'* In respect of my brethren Whatcoat and Yasey, 
it is very uncertain whether any of the clergy men- 
tioned by Brother Kankin, except Mr. Jarratt, will 
stir a step with me in the work ; and it is by no 
means certain that even he will choose to join me in 
ordaining, and propriety and universal practice make 
it expedient that I should have two presbyters with 
me in this work. In short, it appears to me that 
every thing should be prepared, and every thing 
proper be done that can possibly be done, on this side 

the water. You can do all this in Mr. C n's 

house, in your chamber, and afterward (according to 
Mr. Fletcher's advice) give us letters testimonial of 
the different offices with which you have been pleased 



218 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



to invest us. For the purpose of laying hands on 
Brothers Whatcoat and Vasey, I can bring Mr. Creigh- 
ton down with me, by which you will have two 
presbyters with you. 

"In respect to Brother Kankin's argument that you 
will escape a great deal of odium by omitting this, it is 
nothing. Either it will be known or not known. If 
not known, then no odium will arise ; but if known, 
you will be obliged to acknowledge that I acted under 
your direction or suffer me to sink under the weight 
of my enemies, with perhaps your brother at the head 
of them. I shall intreat you to ponder these things. 

" Your most dutiful Thomas Coke." * 

This is a very remarkable letter, and reveals many 
things which it is not our province here to consider. 
The solicitation of ordination for Whatcoat and Va- 
sey is of no moment, for, as we have seen, it was evi- 
dent that at the Conference Wesley's mind was made 
up to grant it. The real point in the letter is the 
solicitation by Dr. Coke for some service for himself, 
and the reason presented is that he fears Asbury 
would not be willing to divide " any part of the su- 
perintendency of the work invested in him," but 
supposes that he would admit Coke's authority if it 
had been " formally received from " Wesley " by the 
imposition of" Wesley's hands. 

* Whitehead's Life of Wesley, vol. ii, p. 417; Tyerman's Life of 
Wesley, vol. iii, p. 429. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 219 

"Now, did Asbury write such a letter as Mr. 
Brackenbury told Dr. Coke he had seen ? It is not 
improbable. Asbury was the head of American 
Methodism, first by the choice of the American 
preachers, and recently by the formal appointment of 
"Wesley. He had guided Methodism in America dur- 1 
ing the disturbances of the war, and, after the war, had 
held it together in spite of internal troubles. It is 
not, therefore, likely that he would be willing to have 
one who had never suffered and toiled in America, as 
he had, come over and entirely supersede him, or even 
to divide the superintendency with him. 

His feeling is manifested in a letter dated West 
Jersey, September 20. 1783; a little less than a year 
before Wesley set apart Dr. Coke to the office of a 
superintendent. In this letter to Wesley, Asbury 
says : 

" No person can manage the lay preachers here so 
well, it is thought, as one that has been at the raising 
of most of them. No man can make a proper change 
upon paper to send one here and another (there) 
without knowing the circuits and the gifts of all the 
preachers, unless he is always out among them. My 
dear sir, a matter of the greatest consequence now 
lies before yon. If you send preachers to America, 
let them be proper persons. We are now united ; all 
things go on well considering the storms and diffih 
culties we have had to ride through. I wisli men of 
the greatest understanding would write impartial 



220 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



accounts, for it would be better for us not to have 
preachers than to be divided. This I know ; great 
men that can do good may do hurt if they should take 
the wrong road. I have labored and suffered much to 
keep the people and preachers together, and if I am 
thought worthy to keep my place I should be willing 
to labor and suffer till death for peace and union/' * 

There was, therefore, some ground for the fear felt 
by Dr. Coke. Asbury had rights which were to be re- 
spected, and he was so popular with the preachers that 
even Dr. Coke, with all his scholarship and executive 
ability, would require the authority of Mr. Wesley to 
give him equal standing. That this authority might 
have been given without a special consecration is 
very plain to those who understand the great influ- 
ence of Wesley, but the difficulty of the situation 
was made by Dr. Coke a reason why he should be 
formally set apart. If he was so set apart he thought 
it would give him prestige with the preachers and 
people in America, and so induce them to acknowl- 
edge his authority as superintendent, for they rever- 
enced Wesley and obeyed his commands. 

Wesley again yields to the practical, for it is a plea 
of practical utility that Coke presents. Holding the 
views he did, he could not think the service essen- 
tial, but he concluded that it was proper. The con- 
sequence was that Wesley set apart Dr. Coke as a 
superintendent with the formalities of prayer and the 

* Atkinson's Centennial History of American Methodism, pp. 72, 73. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 221 

imposition of his hands, " being assisted by other 
ordained ministers," and gave him a written testimo- 
nial to that effect. " This was all that "Wesley did, 
and all that Wesley meant." * " Wesley meant the cer- 
emony to be a mere formality likely to recommend 
his delegate to the Methodists in America." f But it 
w T as fitting that there should be religious service in 
connection with the appointment of a minister to 
such an important mission, and it was an appropriate 
act that the octogenarian Wesley should witli prayer 
and his blessing set apart and bid godspeed to Coke, 
who, though an Oxford Doctor of Laws, was not 
quite thirty-seven years of age. It was a beautiful 
scene, reminding one of an ancient patriarch tenderly 
blessing his beloved son as he was about to depart 
from home charged with some momentous under- 
taking. 

Having appointed him and set him apart, Wesley 
gave him a testimonial letter which was Coke's cer- 
tificate of his appointment as superintendent among 
" the people in the southern provinces of North 
America " who were under Wesley's care. 

The letter is as follows : 

" To ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME : John 

Wesley, late Fellow of Lincoln College in Oxford, 
Presbyter of the Church of England, sendeth greet- 
ing. Whereas many of the people in the Southern 

* Tyerman's Life of Wesley, vol. iii, p. 433. f Ibid., p. 434. 



222 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



provinces of North America, who desire to continue 
under my care, and still adhere to the doctrines and 
discipline of the Church of England, are greatly dis- 
tressed for want of ministers to administer the sacra- 
ments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, according to 
the usage of the same Church ; and whereas there 
does not appear to be any other way of supplying 
them with ministers: 

" Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think my- 
self to be providentially called, at this time, to set 
apart some persons for the work of the ministry in 
America. And, therefore, under the protection of 
almighty God, and with a single eye to his glory, I 
have this day set apart as a superintendent, by the 
imposition of my hands, and prayer, (being assisted 
by other ordained ministers), Thomas Coke, doctor 
of civil law, a presbyter of the Church of England, 
and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for 
that great work. And I do hereby recommend him, to 
all whom it may concern, as a fit person to preside over 
the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I have 
hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of 
September, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
seven hundred and eighty-four. John Wesley." 

Now, what did Wesley make Coke ? Did he in- 
tend to make him a bishop ? In the testimonial 
letter he calls Coke a presbyter, and declares that he 
was " set apart as a superintendent." What he gave 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 223 

him, therefore, was a superintendency. But was 
this an episcopate 1 

Wesley's definition of bishop was overseer ; but a 
superintendent is an overseer, and, therefore, accord- 
ing to the Wesleyan idea, a superintendent is a bishop. 
Nearly forty years before, at his Conference held in 
1745, he gave with great explicitness his definition of 
bishop and bishopric, in describing the evolution of 
episcopal government from the individual congrega- 
tion with its single pastor. In his mind a minister 
who had the charge of ministers serving congrega- 
tions was " the bishop or overseer," and into this 
definition he never introduces or intimates the neces- 
sity of ordination or consecration. In his judgment 
it was the position, not the service, that made the 
bishop. According to the testimonial letter, Coke 
was not only called a superintendent, but he was to 
"preside " over the ministers and churches in Amer- 
ica, and was, therefore, according to Wesley's defini- 
tion of the word, a bishop. 

He called this new officer a superintendent, but the 
question lies not in the name, but in the functions of 
the office. He may have preferred this name, first, 
because the word superintendent best expressed his 
simple idea of the true episcopate, and, secondly, be- 
cause by this name he might avoid the misconceptions 
which might arise from the false and superstitious 
notions which had come down from the distant past 
and still adhered to the title bishop as used by many. 



224 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Wesley declared himself to be a true episcopos, or 
bishop, but he did not style himself a bishop, and did 
did not permit others to address him by that title. 
Wesley was a bishop in the sense that he was an 
overseer of ministers, for he was the overseer both of 
ordained and unordained preachers. Coke was to be 
the superintendent or overseer of ministers, and 
hence he, likewise, was to be a bishop. It will be 
remembered that Protestant bishops on the Continent 
of Europe were called superintendents. 

Another question should be considered : Did Wes- 
ley confer, or intend to confer, a higher order on 
Coke than that which he already possessed ? Coke 
was a presbyter before his appointment, and before he 
was set apart as a superintendent. Did Wesley confer, 
or understand Coke to receive a higher order by his 
appointment, or by the service used in setting him 
apart as a superintendent? For reasons similar to 
those already given in regard to the service itself, we 
would infer that Wesley did not intend to confer any 
higher order on Coke. 

It will be noticed that in the letters testimonial 
Wesley terms himself a presbyter. The ordained 
ministers who were associated with him were also 
presbyters. Trained as he had been, he could not 
mean to give a higher order than the givers had to 
bestow. It is not likely that he would propose to give 
a higher order than he himself possessed. Further, 
as Wesley was only a presbyter in order, it is not 



Wesley and the Amebic an Episcopate. 225 



likely that he would want to give Coke any thing 
higher. Even if presbyters could have given a higher 
order, still it is inconceivable that Wesley would 
want to make Coke his superior. On the contrary, 
the fact is that Wesley never treated Coke as a supe- 
rior, but as a subordinate, and, as we shall see hereafter, 
felt that he had the right to control Coke and all the 
American superintendents, and, it would seem, even 
to remove them from their office at his pleasure. 
This certainly was not in harmony with Wesley's idea 
of the prerogatives of an order, but was treating the 
snperintendency not as an order, but as an office. 

It will be observed that, in the certificate he gave 
Dr, Coke, Wesley does not use the word "ordain," 
or any other word that would indicate that he con- 
sidered it an "ordering" service. He appears to 
purposely avoid any word of that character, and 
simply uses the words " set apart," which would be 
proper when no order was conferred. 

We are not left, however, to indefinite inferences, 
or even to such strong conclusions as those suggested. 
We have his positive declaration, and that in connec- 
tion with this very occasion, that there was no higher 
order than that of presbyter. If, then, in his judg- 
ment there was no higher order, he could not intend 
to give Coke a higher order, for he was a presbyter 
at that time. 

In his letter to the American Methodists and 
their superintendents he said : " Lord King's account 



226 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

of the primitive Church convinced me many years 
ago that bishops and presbyters are the same order." 
That being the case, Wesley could not mean to give 
Coke the same order that he already had, and renders 
it absurd for any one to think that he meant to give 
a higher order when he knew that there was no 
higher order. 

In the same letter he speaks of following " the 
Scriptures and the primitive Church," and his idea of 
bishops and presbyters in the Scriptures and in the 
primitive Church was that they were the same order. 
The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that Wesley 
did not mean to confer, and that he did not confer, 
any order by appointment or by the service setting 
apart Dr. Coke to the snperintendency. Coke, in the 
estimation of Wesley, had the highest order, and 
Wesley could not, therefore, give him one that was 
higher. 

But it may be said that a formal service was used. 
Even if there was, that cannot make any difference. 
Ordering is not in the service, but in the intention and 
act of those who have the power to confer the order. 

Then, again, even if any service could confer an 
order, there is nothing in the testimonial letter to 
prove that this one did. At this service there was 
prayer offered, but prayer for one does not neces^ 
sarily imply an ordination. There was also the impo- 
sition of hands, but even the imposition of hands 
does not necessarily imply ordination. In the Script- 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 227 

ures the imposition of hands is frequently mentioned 
without any idea of elevating to an order. 

" When a Jewish father invoked a benediction on 
any of his family he laid his hands upon the head 
of the child ; when a Jewish priest devoted an ani- 
mal in sacrifice he laid his hand upon the head of the 
victim ; and when a Jewish ruler invested another 
with office he laid his hand upon the head of the new 
functionary." * 

What is more to the point in question is the fact 
that Wesley did not consider that the imposition of 
hands was ordination. As far back as the 10th of 
September, 1756, almost twenty-eight years before, in 
a letter to the Rev. Mr. Clarke, he said : " When 
Paul and Barnabas were separated for the work to 
which they were called this was not ordaiyiing them. 
St. Paul was ordained long before, and that not of 
man nor by man. It was only inducting him to the 
province for which our Lord had appointed him from 
the beginning. For this end the prophets and 
teachers fasted, prayed, and 4 laid their hands upon 
them ; ' a rite which was used, not in ordination only, 
hut in Messing and on many other occasions" * 

As Wesley did not deem that laying on of hands was 
ordination, we cannot call the imposition of hands in 
the case of Coke an ordination, or a service that gave 
Coke an order. Wesley says that hands were laid on 

* Killen: Ancient Church, p. 11, sq. 

f Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., vol. vii, p. 285. 



22.8 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

Paul and Barnabas, but, he adds, " This was not or- 
daining them. St. Paul was ordained long 'before" 
So, though hands were laid on Coke, " this was not 
ordaining " him ; he " was ordained long before" 
Wesley says that " Paul and Barnabas were separated 
for the work," but " this was not ordaining them;" 
and in reference to Coke he uses the equivalent 
phrase, " set apart" and that " was not ordaining " 
him. Coke was " set apart," not ordained by the 
service, and, therefore, received no order at all. 

Wesley says, referring to St. Paul, that the cere- 
mony " was only inducting him to the province for 
which our Lord had appointed him ; " so in Coke's 
case the service was only inducting him into the offi- 
cial position to which he had been appointed. 

Wesley, in this very relation, said, in substance, 
There is no higher order than that of presbyter ; and, 
consequently, could not have given Coke a higher 
order, for he was already a presbyter. Coke was a 
presbyter before ; he is a presbyter still. He has 
been " set apart " for a work, but there was no " or- 
dering " force in the service. He was a presbyter ; 
now he is a presbyter-superintendent, a presbyter to 
preside over presbyters as their overseer, and, in that 
sense, a bishop. He received not an order, but an 
office ; and the appointment alone, without the serv- 
ice, would have given him that. The service made 
him nothing more than a presbyter, and when it w T as 
over he had nothing more than the office of superin- 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 229 

tendent ; but, in view of the responsible duties which 
devolved upon him, and which he was going to dis- 
cbarge, it was eminently appropriate that he should 
be inducted into his office with religions service. 

In regard to Wesley's relation to the episcopate of 
American Methodism, the main point with which we 
are concerned is as to his view at the time he ap- 
pointed and set apart Dr. Coke as a superintendent. 
What he said and believed before, or what he said 
and believed at any subsequent time, is of compara- 
tively little moment. What he believed and intended 
at that time is the important thing. What he did be- 
lieve at that particular time he introduced into the 
letter which Dr. Coke was to present to the American 
Methodists. In that letter he says " that bishops and 
presbyters are the same order." So that the episco- 
pate which he instituted had no higher order than that 
which a presbyter possessed, and, consequently, the 
superintendent was a presbyter- superintendent, and 
the episcopate was an office, and not an order. 

Here we should introduce the letter of Mr. Wesley : 

Bristol, September 10, 17 84. 
To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North 

America : 

By a very uncommon train of providences, many of the prov- 
inces of North America are totally disjoined from the mother 
country, and erected into independent States. The English 
government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesi- 
astical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil 
authority is exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly 
by the provincial assemblies. But no one either exercises or 



230 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situ- 
ation, some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire 
my advice, and, in compliance with their desire, I have drawn 
up a little sketch. 

Lord King's account of the primitive Church convinced me, 
many years ago, that uishops and presbyters are the some order, 
and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years 
I have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this 
right, by ordaining part of our traveling preachers. But I have 
still refused, not only for peace' sake, but because I was deter- 
mined as little as possible to violate the established order of 
the national Church to which I belonged. 

But the case is widely different between England and North 
America. Here there are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction ; 
in America there are none, neither any parish minister, so that 
for some hundreds of miles together there is none either to 
baptize or to administer the Lord's Supper. Here, therefore, 
my scruples are at an end, and I conceive myself at full liberty, 
as I violate no order and invade no man's rights, by appoint- 
ing and sending laborers into the harvest. 

I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis 
Asbury to be joint superintendents over our brethren in North 
America ; as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey to act 
as elders among them, by baptizing and administering the 
Lord's Supper. And I have prepared a liturgy, little differing 
from that of the Church of England (I think the best consti- 
tuted national Church in the world), which I advise all travel- 
ing preachers to use on the Lord's day in all the congregations, 
reading the litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and pray- 
ing extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to 
administer the supper of the Lord on every Lord's day. 

If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way 
of feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I 
will gladly embrace it. At present, I cannot see any better 
method than that I have taken. 

It has, indeed, been proposed to desire the English bishops to 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 231 

ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object: 
(1) I desired the bishop of London to ordain one, but could 
not prevail. (2) If they consented, we know the slowness of 
their proceedings ; but the matter admits of no delay. (3) If 
they would ordain them now, they would expect to govern 
them; and how grievously would this entangle us! (4) As 
our American brethren are now totally disentangled, both from 
the state and the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them 
again, either with the one or the other. They are now at full 
liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive 
Church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in 
that liberty wherewith God has so strangely set them free.* 

John Wesley. 

This is a very important production, and is worthy 
of close study. It is a summary of Wesley's reasons 
for the course he took in order to meet the necessities 
of the American Methodists. The basis of all his 
action is in his declaration " that bishops and presby- 
ters are the same order." + 

This shows why he, as a presbyter, undertook to 
ordain, and also that the only episcopate he believed 
in was one in which the bishop was a presbyter. It 
also states that the legal difficulties which had de- 
terred him from ordaining before did not exist in 
relation to America, and that the emergency com- 
pelled him to act. 

* Wesley's Works, Araer. Ed., pp. 311, 312. 

f The Rev. L. Tyerman, of London, and author of the large three- 
volume Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., Founder of the 
Methodists, in a letter to the writer, dated June 1, 1886, says: "I am 
astonished how any one can doubt that Wesley considered bishops 
and presbyters to be of the same order in the face of Wesley's letter 
to Asbury, dated September 10, 1784." 



232 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

Another interesting fact is that Wesley intended 
the American Methodists to use a liturgical service, 
and so he remarks, " I have prepared a liturgy, little 
differing from that of the Church of England, which 
I advise all the traveling preachers to use on the 
Lord's day in all the congregations, reading the litany 
only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying extem- 
pore on all other days." 

This liturgy he entitled, The Sunday Service of the 
Methodists in the United States of America. With 
Other Occasional Services. It was a 12mo, and was 
first published in 1784. The Preface is as fol- 
lows : 

I believe there is no liturgy in the world, either in ancient 
or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, 
rational piety than the Common Prayer of the Church of 
England; and though the main of it was compiled considerably 
more than two hundred years ago, yet is the language of it not 
only pure, but strong and elegant in the highest degree. 

Little alteration is made in the following edition of it, except 
in the following instances : 

1. Most of the holy days (so called) are omitted, as at present 
answering no valuable end. 

2. The service of the Lord's day, the length of which has 
been often complained of, is considerably shortened. 

3. Some sentences in the offices of baptism, and for the 
burial of the dead, are omitted ; and, 

4. Many psalms left out, and many parts of the others, as 
being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian congre- 
gation. John Wesley. 

Bristol, September 9, 1784. * 

* See Wesley's Works, American Edition, vol. vii, pp. 580, 581. 



Wesley and the American Episcopate. 233 



This service was prepared in apparent haste, but it 
anticipated modern demands, especially in the matter 
of brevity, which churches using the Anglican liturgy 
have been striving to gain. Dr. Stevens goes so far 
as to say that " Wesley's abridgment of the Common 
Prayer was exceedingly well done ; superior to that 
adopted by the Protestant Episcopal Church. It 
includes the very quintessence of the English liturgy 
in the best possible form." * 

In addition to this service-book Wesley furnishes 
articles of religion, striking out from the Thirty- 
nine Articles of the Church of England the third, 
eighth, thirteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, 
twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-third, twenty-sixth, 
twenty-ninth, thirty-third, thirty-fourth, thirty-sixth, 
and thirty-seventh, omitting the apocryphal books 
from the sixth, the latter part of the ninth, and the 
latter part of the nineteenth, and making verbal 
emendations in some of the others. 

The object of this was, first, brevity and simplicity ; 
secondly, to avoid that which was alleged to be Cal- 
vinistic ; and, thirdly, to give greater comprehension 
and liberality to the Creed. 

It will be observed that Whatcoat and Vasey were 
ordained at Bristol on the 1st of September, 1784 ; 
the preface to the liturgy was dated eight days after, 
namely, September 9, and Wesley's official letter to 

* Stevens's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, foot- 
note, pp. 198, 199. 



234: The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



the American Methodists was dated the following 
day, September 10, 1784 ; and liturgy and letter were 
prepared and the ordination took place in Bristol, to 
which Wesley was going when, nearly forty years be- 
fore, he was convinced that presbyters and bishops 
were the same order, and that presbyters had the same 
right to ordain. On the 18th of the same month Dr. 
Coke, accompanied by Whatcoat and Vasey, sailed 
from Bristol, carrying with them the articles of re- 
ligion, the liturgy, and the ritual which Wesley had 
prepared for the American Methodists. 

Wesley considered that they were " now totally dis- 
entangled both from the state and the English hierar- 
chy," and were " at full liberty simply to follow the 
Scriptures and the primitive Church ; " * and hence, 
w T hile he furnishes them with articles of religion and 
a liturgy, and ordained ministers to administer the 
sacraments, he also appointed superintendents to over- 
see the work and preside over the preachers and peo- 
ple ; and these superintendents, like those who occu- 
pied the episcopate in the primitive Christian Church, 
were to be presbyters in order, and presiding presby- 
ters in office. 

* Wesley's Letter to the Methodists in North America. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 235 



CHAPTER Y. 



THE ORGANIZATION" OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL 



HE destitution of the people of America in regard 



-L to the sacraments created a demand for ordained 
ministers. So the disturbed ecclesiastical conditions 
created a demand for Church organization. 

All the denominations had been affected more or 
less injuriously by the Revolutionary War. Even the 
Presbyterians, who had quite unanimously arrayed 
themselves on the side of the patriots, suffered greatly, 
and it was not until 1785 that steps were taken for 
revising the standards and organizing a General As- 
sembly, and it was not until May, 1788, that a synod 
convened and resolved itself into a General Assem- 
bly. This General Assembly held its first meeting in 
1789, and embraced the four synods of New York 
and New Jersey, Philadelphia, Yirginia, and the Car- 
olinas. In 1817 the Baptists formed a triennial con- 
vention, but that has since been discontinued. 

Our study of the ecclesiastical conditions will turn 
our attention chiefly to the body with which Method- 
ism was most closely identified. 

The war had been disastrous to the Church of En- 
gland in America. As we have seen, most of the 



CHURCH. 




236 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



churches were vacant, and little need be added to the 
descriptions of distress already presented. 

The author of the Memoir of Bishop Hobart speaks 
of it as a "desolated " Church ; and says that " the con- 
sequences of the Revolution were for a time fatal;" 
that it had " neither point of union nor power of in- 
crease ; " that " the few churches that remained had 
no tie of brotherhood among themselves ; " that, "the 
external bond being removed, they fell apart like a 
rope of sand," so that " each stood in its own state of 
helpless independency, fast tending- to use the ex- 
pressive language of Burke — toward 'the dust and 
powder of individuality.' " * 

In fact, the Church of England no longer existed 
in the United States. There were isolated churches, 
but, as we have already seen, there were few clergy- 
men, and these scattered remains were without organ- 
ization. There was no convocation or convention for 
the country, and there was no bishop, and, conse- 
quently, no episcopal continuation. 

What remained of the Established Church was un- 
popular, because it was " identified by popular preju- 
dice with the royal government." f 

In the North the clergy were sustained by " foreign 
funds." They were missionaries employed by the 
English Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
in Foreign Parts, without whose stipends they could 
not have been sustained. The only clergy who Were 

* Memoir of Bishop Uobart, pp. 78, 80. f Ibid., p. 78. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 237 

not so supported in the North were those resident in 
Boston, Newport, New York city, and Philadelphia.* 

A letter written in 1783 to one of the English 
archbishops shows the effects of the Revolutionary 
War upon the Northern clergy. It says : 

" It may be proper to inform your grace that the 
late confusions have been fatal to great numbers of 
the American clergy. Many have died ; others have 
been banished ; so that several parishes are now 
destitute of incumbents. In the four colonies of Con- 
necticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania 
we know at this time of no less than seventy vacant 
churches. . . . We believe the case of the other colo- 
nies to be nearly similar." f The Episcopal clergy 
were, as Bishop White wrote, " gradually approach- 
ing to annihilation." J 

The question with some who remained was "how 
to devise a plan for effecting its revival and organiza- 
tion." § How to give unity where there was " neither 
point of union nor power of increase," and to give 
cohesion to that which had fallen " apart like a rope 
of sand" was certainly a knotty problem. Any effort 
to restore the " desolated " ecclesiasticism looked like 
a doubtful, if not an impossible, task. 

" Great difficulties existed in the way of a success- 

* Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Sec- 
ond Ed., p. 3. 

f Beardsle3 T, s Life of Bishop Seabury. pp. 92, 93. 

\ Memoir of Bishop White, p. 81. §Ibid., p. 19. 



233 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



ful prosecution of this object, arising from the con- 
dition of the country ; from strong prejudices gener- 
ally prevailing against that church, partly from her 
former connection with the Established Church of 
England, and partly from opposition to her prin- 
ciples of ecclesiastical government ; and from the 
want of union in opinions and feelings among Episco- 
palians themselves, in the different States." * 

Dr. Wilson, author of the Life of Bishop White, 
says there was " an apprehension that if bishops were 
consecrated by that Church (the Church of England) 
for her, a subjection to them, or at least an un- 
due influence, would be the result ; and ... an 
opinion, unreasonably formed, that episcopacy itself 
was unfriendly to the political principles of our 
republican governments. To which may be added 
the fact that many of her clergy had been led 
by conscientious scruples to adhere to the British 
government and leave the country ; while others, 
under the influence of the same scruples, though they 
remained here and quietly submitted to the established 
government, disapproved of the Revolution. The 
prejudices occasioned by these circumstances did not 
affect only those unconnected with the Episcopal 
Church, but existed also, in a measure, among her 
own members. So strong were they in South Caro- 
lina that the consent of the Episcopalians of that 
State to a general union was in danger of being lost 

* Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 79, 80. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 239 



by their apprehensions of the consequences of the in- 
troduction of bishops consecrated by those of a foreign 
country. ... In others of the Southern States very 
lax notions on the subject of episcopacy were adopted, 
insomuch that it was thought there was no necessity 
to resort to foreign bishops to obtain the succession, 
but we might appoint and ordain them ourselves. 
The Church had suffered, too, in general estimation 
by the bad conduct of many of her clergy in Mary- 
land and Virginia, and the States south of them. 
Whether this was the consequence of neglect and 
want of due care in those charged, in England, 
with the power of sending out clergymen to this 
country, or deception in the recommendation of un- 
suitable candidates to them, or of the want of disci- 
pline in the Church here, leaving the clergy free from 
any superintending control, and making it almost im- 
practicable to remove or check a vicious clergyman, 
or of both those causes, the effects produced severely 
injured her influence and reputation, lowering her 
religious character in the opinion of the community, 
and inducing many of her own members to depart 
from her fold and unite themselves with other 
churches. From the operation of these causes the 
Episcopal Church, at the close of the Revolution, was 
reduced to a very low condition, and almost in dan- 
ger of extinction, most of her clergy having died, or 
removed from the country, or retired from active 
duty, and none ordained to supply their place, and 



240 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



lier congregations in most places broken up and dis- 
persed. The degree of this evil may be estimated by 
the fact, formerly mentioned, that in Pennsylvania 
Dr. White was, for some time, the only clergyman ; 
and in the other States, even those in which the 
clergy had before been the most numerous, very few 
remained. In addition to all these embarrassments 
it was known that differences of opinion, on some 
important points, existed in the Church itself, par- 
ticularly between the clergy of the Eastern States 
and those of the South, which might lead to disunion. 
And the want of bishops and the very inadequate 
supply of clergy prevented any vigorous and system- 
atic exertion for her improvement." * 

The mere suggestion of introducing a bishop into 
the country, or even the episcopal office under some 
other name, called forth violent opposition among the 
people generally, and also among the Episcopalians 
themselves. So Bishop White speaks of "the prej- 
udices of even some of the members of our own 
Church against the name, and much more against the 
office, of bishop." f 

Again he says : " He remembers the ante-revolution- 
ary times, when the presses profusely emitted pam- 
phlets and newspaper disquisitions on the question 
whether an American bishop were to be endured, 

* Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 93-95. 

f Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
Second Edition, 1836, p. 88. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 241 



and when threats were thrown out of throwing such 
a person, if he were sent among us, into the river, 
although his agency was advocated for the sole pur- 
pose of a communion submitting itself to his spiritual 
jurisdiction. It is true that the subject was entan- 
gled with the affirmed danger of subserviency to the 
designs of the government of the mother country, in 
her hostility to the rights of her colonies. Such was 
the effect of the combining of these two opposite in- 
terests, and so specious were the pretensions of the 
anti-Episcopalian opposition to the measure, that it 
would have been impossible to have obtained a re- 
spectably signed lay petition for it, to onr superiors 
in England, although to relieve us from the hardship 
of sending candidates for the ministry to that country 
to be ordained. When, after the Revolution, it was 
hoped the door would be open for the accomplish- 
ment of the object, even among those who were zeal- 
ous for the obtaining of it there arose the question 
whether, in deference to prejudice, there should not 
he dropped the name of bishop, and the succession 
be continued under another name." * 

Such was the condition of things shortly after the 
close of the war for independence. The people who 
were not members were prejudiced against the re- 
mains of the Church of England, which had been 
largely representative of the British government. 

* Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Chwch. 
Second Edition, p. 266. 
16 



242 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

The people who had been members were uncertain 
as to the future, and many of them were leaving and 
uniting themselves " with other churches," while the 
few clergymen who continued in charge of churches 
were disunited and were unable to devise a bond of 
union. These important differences of opinion, with 
the other difficulties which have been noted, reduced 
the Episcopal churches to such an extremely low 
condition that they were, as Bishop White's biog- 
rapher says, " almost in danger of extinction." 

The condition of the Methodists even in that day 
was one of marked contrast. They came out of the 
confusion of the war with solid columns which were 
well officered and successfully guided. Their preach- 
ers were identified with the people, and prejudice 
did not exist against the Methodists as a foreign or- 
ganization or the representative of a foreign state, 
with which there had been a war, as it did against 
the fragments of the English national Church. As 
a result of this, as well as of earnest work, both min- 
isters and members among the Methodists were 
steadily increasing. 

Doubtful, indeed, must have seemed the future of 
the Episcopal churches, but here and there sug- 
gestions began to be made in hope of bringing about 
some solution of the problem. 

Early in August, 1782, Dr. White, of Philadelphia, 
who for some time had been the only clergyman in 
Pennsylvania, published a small pamphlet, entitled 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 243 



The Case of the Episcopal Churches considered? in 
which, in view of the difficulties, he proposed a plan 
of organization. His biographer tells us that 
"Tlie particular organization then proposed com- 
prehended permanent superintending ministers, with 
power similar to those of bishops ; and the provisions 
suggested were, that the individual churches should 
be associated in small districts, in each of which there 
should be a convention composed of representatives 
elected from the vestry or congregation of the several 
churches within it, the minister being one ; that they 
should choose a permanent president, who, with other 
clergymen appointed by the body, might exercise 
powers purely spiritual ; in particular, those of ordi- 
nation and discipline over the clergy, according to 
reasonable laws;" and as "the churches were unable 
to provide a support," " the duties assigned to " the 
'•superintending ministers" "ought not materially to 
interfere with their employments as parochial clergy- 
men, and their superintendence should consequently 
be confined to small districts." * 

How familiar these words " superintending minis- 
ters" and "superintendence " seem to those who rec- 
ollect that Wesley appointed Dr. Coke to be a " su- 
perintendent ! " The necessity of the times appears to 
have impressed White and Wesley in the same way. 
Tt will also be noticed, in passing, that in 1779, more 
than three years before the publication of Dr. White's 

* Memoir of Bislwp White, p. 83. 



244: The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



pamphlet, the Methodists in America had appealed 
their case to Mr. Wesley. 

Dr. White's recommendation was " to include in 
the proposed frame of government a general approba- 
tion of episcopacy, and a declaration of an intention 
to procure the succession as soon as conveniently may 
be, but in the meantime to carry the plan into 
effect without waiting for the succession ; " * and 
when " the episcopal succession 55 was " afterward ob- 
tained, any supposed imperfections of the intermedi- 
ate ordinations might, if it were judged proper, be 
supplied, without acknowledging their nullity, by a 
conditional ordination, resembling that of conditional 
baptism in the liturgy," which "was an expedient 
proposed by Archbishop Tillotson, Bishops Patrick, 
Stillingfleet, and others, at the revolution, and had 
been actually practiced in Ireland by Archbishop 
Bramhall," f 

Bishop White's biographer observes : " He main- 
tained the propriety of not waiting for the episcopal 
succession, on the ground that the worship of God 
and the instruction and reformation of the people are 
the principal objects of ecclesiastical discipline ; and 
these paramount objects should not be relinquished 
or suspended by scrupulous adherence to episcopacy, 
when there was an inability to procure it ; and that 
all the obligations of conformity to the divine ordi- 
nances, all the arguments which prove the connection 

♦Pamph., p. 17. \ Ibid., pp. 19, 20. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 215 



between public worship and the morals of a people, 
combined to urge the adopting of some speedy meas- 
ure to provide for the public ministry in these 
Churches. He went, at large, into the proofs, from 
the institutions of the Church of England, and from 
the opinions and reasonings of many of her most 
eminent divines, that such a temporary departure 
from episcopacy, in a case of necessity, was not op- 
posed to her principles." * 

Bishop White introduced similar doctrines into his 
episcopal charges of 1807 and 1834, and, in a note 
added on the 21st of December, 1830, to a letter to 
Bishop Hobart, said : 

"In agreement with the sentiments expressed in 
that pamphlet, I am still of opinion that in an ex- 
igency in which a duly authorized ministry cannot 
be obtained the paramount duty of preaching the 
Gospel, and the worshiping of God on the terms of 
the Christian covenant, should go on, in the best 
manner which circumstances permit. In regard to 
the episcopacy, I think it should be sustained, as the 
government of the Church from the time of the 
apostles, but without criminating the ministry of 
other churches, as is the course taken by the Church 
of England.' 1 + The pamphlet had been placed in the 
hands of the Archbishop of York, and was officially 
presented by Mr. Adams, the American minister, 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but neither 
* Memoir of Bishop White, p, 85. \ Ibid., pp. 86, 81. 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



prelate expressed any dissatisfaction with the pam- 
phlet* 

Leaving out the question of succession, Wesley 
himself could hardly have written a better defense of 
his course than these words of Dr. White. In " an 
exigency," he said, " the paramount duty of preaching 
the Gospel, and the worshiping of God on the terms 
of the Christian covenant, should go on, in the best 
manner which circumstances permit." So said Wes- 
ley, and he ordained ministers. So said the Ameri- 
can Methodist ministers, aud they preached and ad- 
ministered the sacraments. 

Dr. White held that it was right to have a " super- 
intending minister," and Wesley appointed a " super- 
intendent." Dr. White acknowledged the validity 
of the ordination given by presbyters, and so Wesley 
held the right of presbyters to ordain, and his pres- 
bytery, formed of regularly ordained presbyters who 
were Methodists, did ordain other presbyters. It is 
true that Dr. White suggested that "any supposed 
imperfections" might be supplied in the future "if; 
it were judged proper ; " but he insisted that, even if 
this were done, it should be "without acknowledging 
their nullity" He is not sure that it would be 
proper to attempt to correct " any supposed imper- 
fections of the intermediate ordinations," but he is 
positive that there is no invalidity about such presby- 
terial ordinations, and, so, on the theory of necessity 

* Memoir of Bishop White, p. 87. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 247 



as held by Bishop White, the ordinations by Wesley 
were to be acknowledged as valid. 

Dr. White's liberal views, however, were not to 
stand unopposed. The next year antagonism dip- 
played itself in the North and emanated from tli-j 
clergy of Connecticut. 

On the 25th of March, 1783, a small body of Epis- 
copal ministers, assembled at Woodbury in that State, 
addressed a letter to Dr. White taking grave excep- 
tions to his views. In it they said : " But why do 
you include a general approbation of episcopacy in 
your proposed new frame of government ? Not be- 
cause you think bishops a constituent part of an 
Episcopal Church, unless you conceive they derive 
their office and existence from the king's authority ; 
for though you acknowledge we cannot at present 
have bishops here, &iid propose to set up without them, 
yet you say no constitutional principle of our Church 
is changed by the Revolution, but what was founded 
on the authority of the king. Your motives for the 
above general approbation seem, indeed, to be purely 
political. . . . But could you have proposed to set 
up the" ministry without waiting for the succession, 
had you believed the episcopal superiority to be an 
ordinance of Christ, with the exclusive authority of 
ordination and government, and that it has ever been 
so esteemed in the purest ages of the Church ? And 
yet we conceive this to be the sense of Episco- 
palians in general, and warranted by the constant 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



practice of the Christian Church. Really, sir, we 
think an Episcopal Church without episcopacy, if it 
be not a contradiction in terms, would, however, be a 
new thing under the sun ; and yet the Episcopal 
Church, by the pamphlet proposed to be erected, 
must be in this predicament till the succession be ob- 
tained. You plead necessity, however, and argue 
that the best writers in the Church admit of presby- 
terian ordination where episcopal cannot be had. 
To prove this you quote concessions from the vener- 
able Hooker and Dr. Chandler, which their exuber- 
ant charity for the Reformed Churches abroad led 
them to make. . . . Should we consent to a tempo- 
rary departure from episcopacy there would be very 
little propriety in asking for it afterwards, and as lit- 
tle reason ever to expect it in America." * 

Quite logical, indeed, is this letter. It was very 
doubtful if Dr. White's plan was carried out whether 
the Americans would ever trouble themselves about 
any foreign consecration. The writers of the letter 
drew a very correct inference when they inferred 
that Dr. White did not believe " the episcopal superi- 
ority to be an ordinance of Christ with the exclusive 
authority of ordination and government," for he be- 
lieved with the best writers of the Church of England 
that there were circumstances when presbyterian or- 
dination was just as valid as that given by the Church 
of England bishops. 

* Letter in Life of Bishop Seabury, pp. 98-102. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 249 

But Dr. White was not alone in these liberal views. 
All through the southern section of the country such 
opinions seem to have prevailed. The Episcopalians 
in South Carolina proposed adopting a nominal epis- 
copacy, and " the legislature of Maryland entertained 
the plan of themselves appointing the ordainers." * 

All these expedients were really unintended in- 
dorsements of the presbyterial ordination of Meth- 
odism. If their suggestions were right, the action of 
Wesley and his followers was right. Their ordina- 
tion would have been by presbyters, and the Method- 
ist ordination was by presbyters. They claimed that 
their suggestions were in harmony with the "best 
writers " of the Anglican Church, and, if so, then the 
course of Methodism was equally in harmony with 
the principles enunciated by the same "best writ- 
ers." Dr. White was much nearer the true view than 
the little company of Connecticut clergymen ; and if 
his views had prevailed there would have been in- 
troduced an episcopate which would have borne a 
striking resemblance to that of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church. 

The reference to the letter sent to Dr. White by 
the Connecticut clergymen recalls an important his- 
toric event which took place in their meeting on the 
25th of March, 1783, the very day the letter was Writ- 
ten. That event was nothing less than the selection, 
by this convention, of a clergyman who should go to 

* Memoir of Bishop Hobart, p. 80. 



250 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



England and endeavor to secure from the English 
prelates consecration as a bishop. Yet, in that letter, 
they did not inform Dr. White of the steps they were 
taking, and Dr. White did not know any thing about 
the project. Evidently they did not intend he should 
know any thing in regard to it, though the purpose 
of the gathering was to take the preliminary steps 
toward obtaining a bishop. 

They numbered ten, and met in secret conclave. 
" No laymen were admitted to the gathering, and it 
was so secret as to be known only to the clergy." 
" No minutes were kept to be made public." " The 
fear of opposition, and perhaps the fear of not hav- 
ing the hearty concurrence of their lay brethren, led 
to the secrecy of the. movement." The effort to keep 
the matter secret may be inferred from the fact that 
Daniel Fogg, who was one of the ten, wrote, on the 
2d of July of that year, to the Rev. Mr. Parker, of 
Boston, as follows : " The Connecticut clergy have 
done already every thing in their power in the mat- 
ter you were anxious about; would write you the 
particulars, if I knew of any safe opportunity of send- 
ing this letter, but as I do not, must defer it till I 
do> * 

Secrecy must have seemed of vital importance 
when, even months after this secret gathering, one of 
the ten would not state the facts in a letter to a cler- 
gyman who appears to have been equally desirous of 

* Beardsley'i- Life of Bishop Seabury, Third Edition, p. 18. 



ORGANIZATION OF THE M. E. CHURCH. 251 



securing a bishop, lest the information might be im- 
parted to others. 

This secret meeting, kept secret even from the 
members of the churches in Connecticut, convened, 
not in a church, but in a private house in the village 
of Woodbury, in that State, and this house was that 
of the rector of the church, who was a missionary of 
the British Society.** In this secret meeting in this 
private house, this convention of ten ministers, " on 
the 25th day of March, without formal election, se- 
lected two persons, the Rev. Jeremiah Learning and 
the Rev. Samuel Seabury, as suitable, either of them, 
to go to England and obtain, if possible, episcopal 
consecration." f 

" The two candidates were in New York, and Mr. 
Learning, to whom the appointment was first offered, 
shrank, at his time of life and with his infirmities, 
from undertaking responsibilities and burdens so 
great. There was good reason for giving him the 
opportunity to decline the high and sacred office." 
Probably there was an expectation that he would 
decline, and consequently the real choice of the ten 
clergymen was Dr. Seabury. 

Seabury was in New York at this time, and was 
there with very good reasons — for his own personal 
safety. Both he and Learning were tories. Learning 
was a refugee from his Connecticut parish, and Sea- 

* Beardsley's Life of Bishop Seabury, Third Edition, p. 77. 
f Ibid., p. 78. \ Ibid., p. 79. 



252 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



bury from his parish at Westchester on Long Island 
Sound, and they and others were under the protection 
of the British forces which occupied New York city. 
Here Dr. Seabury practiced medicine, and held the 
position of chaplain in one of the British regiments. 
Seabury was born while his father was a Congrega- 
tional minister, and he was baptized by a minister of 
the Congregational Church. Subsequently his father 
entered the ministry of the Church of England, and 
received an appointment as missionary to New Lon- 
don, and in course of time the son became a minister 
in the same Church. When the war for independence 
broke out Dr. Seabury was opposed to the intentions 
and efforts of the Continental Congress, and as a result 
he found it more comfortable within the British lines. 
The British had not evacuated New York when he 
received the notification that at the secret meeting of 
ten he had been selected to go to England for conse- 
cration. When he sailed it was in the flag-ship of 
the English Admiral Digby. 

He carried with him various documents from the 
ten Connecticut ministers and three ministers who 
were in New York city. In the letter from the 
Connecticut clergymen to the Archbishop of York 
one of the arguments presented for the purpose of 
securing the consecration was the desire to prevent 
the consummation of Dr. White's plan. The petition 
urges dispatch, " because if it be now any longer neg- 
lected there is reason to apprehend that a plan of a 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 253 

very extraordinary nature, lately formed and published 
in Philadelphia, may be carried into execution. This 
plan is, in brief, to constitute a nominal episcopate by 
the united suffrages of presbyters and laymen. The 
peculiar situation of the Episcopal Churches in Amer- 
ica, and the necessity of adopting some speedy 
remedy for the want of a regular episcopate, are 
offered, in the publication here alluded to, as reasons 
fully sufficient to justify the scheme. . . . We think 
it our duty to reject such a spurious substitute for 
episcopacy, and, as far as may be in our power, to 
prevent its taking effect." * 

They were determined to prevent the success of 
Dr. White's plan, and so they kept their movements 
from him, but they could use his proposal to influence 
the Archbishop of York in their favor, and in a letter 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury they made it the 
basis of a similar argument. 

In this letter they say : " A further reason, we beg 
leave to observe, that induces us to take this early and 
only measure we can devise for this purpose is effect- 
ually to prevent the carrying into execution a plan 
of a very extraordinary nature lately come to our 
knowledge, formed and published in Philadelphia, 
and, as we suppose, circulating in the Southern States 
with a design to have it adopted. The plan is, in 
brief, to constitute a nominal ideal episcopate, by the 
united suffrages of presbyters and laymen. The sin- 

* Beardsley's Life of Bishop Sedbury, pp. 80, 81. 



254 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

gular and peculiar situation of the American Church, 
the exigence of the case, and the necessity of adopting 
some speedy and specious remedy corresponding with 
the state of affairs in the country, are some of the 
pleas which are adduced as adequate to give full sanc- 
tion to this scheme. To what degree such a plan 
may operate upon the minds of the uninformed, un- 
stable, or unprincipled part of the Church we can at 
present form no opinion ; equally unable are we to 
conjecture what may be the lengths to which the rage 
for popular right, as the fountain for all institutions, 
civil and ecclesiastical, will run ; sufficient for us it is 
that, while we conscientiously reject such a spurious 
substitute for episcopacy, we also think it our duty 
to take every step within our power to frustrate its 
pernicious effects." * And so they kept their effort 
secret from Dr. White, and the other Episcopalians 
who favored his simpler and more liberal views. 

The Rev. Mr. Fogg, who before had written the 
Ttev. Samuel Parker, of Boston, wrote, on the 14th 
of July, 1783, another letter to the same reverend 
gentleman, in which he says more about secrecy, and 
at the same time reveals some of their intentions, 
which may now be done with less danger, for prior to 
this Dr. Seabury had landed in England. Mr. Fogg 
says : " I wrote you a few lines the 2d instant by an 
uncertain conveyance, in which I mentioned that the 
Connecticut clergy had done all in their power re- 

* Beardsley's Life of Bishop Seabury, p. 87. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 255 

specting the matter you were anxious about ; but they 
keep it a profound secret even from their most inti- 
mate friends of the laity." He then tells of the selec- 
tion of Dr. Seabury, and adds : " If he succeeds, he 
is to come out as a missionary for New London or 
some other vacant mission, and if they will not re- 
ceive him in Connecticut, or in any other of the States 
of America, he is to go to Nova Scotia. Sir Guy 
[Carleton, the British commander-in-chief] highly ap- 
proves of the plan, and has used all his influence in 
favor of it." * 

So it appears that they had anticipated the possi- 
bility of a refusal to receive Dr. Seabury in any of 
the States even if he was made bishop, and so, with 
his British proclivities, he was to reside in Nova 
Scotia, whither American candidates might go for 
ordination. 

On the 1st of August, 1783, Mr. Fogg again writes 
Mr. Parker, as follows : 

" I am very glad that the conduct of the Connecti- 
cut clergy meets with your approbation in the main. 
Dr. Seabury 's being a refugee was an objection which 
I made, but was answered, they could not fix upon 
any other person who they thought was so likely to 
succeed as he was, and should he succeed, and not 
be permitted to reside in any of the United States it 
would be an easy matter for any other person who 
was not obnoxious to the powers that he to be con- 

* Beardsley's Life of Bishop Seabury, pp. 103, 104. 



256 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



secrated by him at Halifax. And as to the objection of 
not consulting the clergy of the other States, the time 
would not allow of it, and there was nobody to con- 
sult in the State of New York, for there is not one 
clergyman there except refugees, and they were con- 
sulted. And in the State of Connecticut there are four- 
teen clergymen. And in your State and New Hamp- 
shire you know how many there are, and you know 
there is no compulsion in the matter, and you will be 
left to act as you please, either to be subject to him 
or not." * It would appear from this that Mr. Parker 
had two objections to Dr. Seabury ; first, that he was 
not a patriot, but a tory refugee, and, secondly, that 
the clergy generally had not been consulted in his se- 
lection. The answer is, first, that they thought he was 
more likely to succeed in securing the consecration 
from the English bishops, and, secondly, that there 
was not time to consult the clergy generally, though 
there was time to write to Dr. White a criticism on 
his plan, and there were no clergymen in New York 
" except refugees," and they had been consulted. 

It was true that Dr. Seabury was " obnoxious to 
the powers that be" but if he was not " permitted to 
reside in any of the United States," he could reside 
on British territory near by. His tory ism might 
commend him to the English bishops and give him a 
congenial home in Halifax, if he was not permitted 
to reside in the land which had just gained its inde- 

* Beardsley's Life of Bishop Seabury, p. 105. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 257 



pendence. Dr. Seabury represented the tory element, 
while Dr. White represented the spirit of patriotism. 

Dr. Seabury lost no time in seeking the. English 
bishops and trying to induce them to grant him con- 
secration, but still endeavoring to keep the matter 
from the knowledge of the American people. 
After he had seen the Bishop of London and the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, he wrote his first letter 
from England to his Connecticut clergy. In it he 
mentions having waited on the Bishop of London, 
who " approved of the scheme." As to the primate, 
however, he says: "But upon conversing with his 
grace of Canterbury I found his opinion rather 
different from the Bishop of London. He received 
me politely, approved of the measure, saw the neces- 
sity of it, and would do all he could to carry it into 
execution. But he must proceed openly and with 
candor P Further on he says : " My greatest fear 
arises from the matter becoming public, as it now 
must, and that the Dissenters here will prevail on 
your government to apply against it : this I think 
would effectually crush it, at least so far as it relates 
to Connecticut. You will therefore do well to attend 
to this circumstance yourselves, and get such of your 
friends as you can trust, to find out, should any such 
intelligence come from hence." * 

In August, after an interview with the Archbishop 
of York, which he fears was " to very little purpose," 

* Beardsley's Life of Bishop Seabury, pp. 106, 107. 

17 



25S 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



he writes again to the ten clergymen in Connecticut 
and sajs : " The matter here will become public. It 
will soon get to Connecticut. Had you not, gentle- 
men, better make immediate application to the State 
for permission to have a bishop to reside there ? 
Should you not succeed, you lose nothing, and I am 
pretty confident you will not succeed here without 
such consent." * The matter could not be kept se- 
cret much longer, for both the archbishops refused to 
consecrate the candidate without the consent of the 
State of Connecticut, and now that it was necessary 
to appeal to the Assemby of the State he expresses 
his willingness to give up his "pretensions to any 
person who shall be agreeable" to the Connecticut 
clergy, " and less exceptionable to the State." 

Members of the Assembly were seen, but no formal 
action was taken by that body. What had been 
done was communicated to the Archbishop of Can- 
terbury, and on May 3, ITSi, Dr. Seabury wrote 
that he had called on the primate on the first of that 
month, and then gives the following account of this 
interview : " His grace's behavior, though polite, 1 
thought was cool and restrained. When he had read 
the letter he observed that it was still the application 
only of the clergy, and that the permission was only 
the permission of individuals, and not of the leg- 
islature." f 

In the meantime Dr. White, who was in total 
♦Beardsley's Lift of Biehop Seahury, p. 109. f Ibid., p. 120. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 259 

ignorance as to the Connecticut movement, had not 
abandoned his idea of establishing an Episcopal 
Church in the United States. The idea began to 
take form in a meeting convened for an entirely 
different purpose. Dr. White says : " The first step 
toward the forming of a collective body of the Epis- 
copal Church in the United States was taken at a 
meeting, for another purpose, of a few clergymen of 
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, at Bruns- 
wick, in New Jersey, on the 13th and 14th of May, 
1784. These clergymen, in consequence of prior 
correspondence, had met for the purpose of consult- 
ing in what way to renew a society that had existed 
under charters of incorporation from the governors 
of the said three States, for the support of widows 
and children of deceased clergymen. Here it was 
determined to procure a larger meeting on the fifth 
of the ensuing October, in New York, not only for 
the purpose of reviving the said charitable institution, 
but to confer and agree on some general principles of 
a union of the Episcopal Church throughout the 
States/' * 

Nine clergymen were present, and four laymen 
who happened to be in the town " were requested to 
attend. . . . The first day was chiefly taken up with 
discussing principles of ecclesiastical union. . . . The 
next morning," says Bishop White, " the author was 

* Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Second 
Edition, pp. 21, 22. 



260 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



taken aside, before the meeting, by Mr. Benjamin 
Moore, who expressed the wish of himself and others 
that nothing should be urged further on the subject, 
as they found themselves peculiarly circumstanced, 
in consequence of their having joined the clergy of 
Connecticut in their application for the consecration 
of a bishop. This brought to the knowledge of the 
clergy from Philadelphia, what they had not known, 
that Dr. Samuel Seabury, of the State of New York, 
who had sailed for England just before the evacuation- 
of New York by the British troops, carried with him 
a petition to the English bishops for his consecration. 

"In consequence of the measure taken as above 
stated, the gentlemen concerned in it thought that dur- 
ing the pending of their application they could not 
consistently join in any proceedings which might be 
construed to interfere with it. Accordingly, the con- 
vention of that day, on which the meeting ended, 
was principally confined to the business of the re- 
vival of the corporation for the relief of the widows 
and the children of the clergy. . . . But before the 
clergy parted it was agreed to procure as general a 
meeting as might be of representatives of the 
clergy and of the laity of the different States, in the 
city of New York, on the 6th of October following. 
. . . The author remarked at this meeting that, not- 
withstanding the good humor which prevailed at it, 
the more Northern clergymen were under apprehen- 
sions of there being a disposition on the part of the 



ORGANIZATION OF THE M. E. CHURCH. 261 



more Southern to make material deviation from the 
ecclesiastical system of England in the article of 
Church government. At the same time he wondered 
that any sensible and well-informed persons should 
overlook the propriety of accommodating that sys- 
tem, in some respects, to the prevailing sentiments 
and habits of the people of this country, now become 
an independent and combined commonwealth." * 

So these nine ministers and four accidental laymen 
really did nothing in regard to the ecclesiastical union 
further than converse about it. What they might 
have done had not the Seabury secret been revealed 
no one can tell. The surprise of that revelation com- 
pelled a halt. Dr. White did not think the action of 
the Connecticut ministers legal. He says : " This was 
an act of the clergy generally in that State, and of a 
few in New York ; and is rather to be considered as 
done by them in their individual capacities than as a 
regular ecclesiastical proceeding; because, as yet, 
there had not been any organized assembly who could 
claim the power of acting for the Church in conse- 
quence of either the express or the implied consent 
of the body of Episcopalians." f 

In the meantime Dr. Seabury had tried in vain to 
secure consecration from the English bishops. One 
legal difficulty after another was put in his way, and 
one of the strongest objections was the fact that he had 

* Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Second 
Edition, pp. 18, 79. \ITrid., p. 83. 



262 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



not been the choice of a properly organized Church. 
So Bishop Hobart's biographer says that " the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury declined consecrating Dr. Sea- 
bury on this ground, among others, that he was not 
the choice of the Church at large." * 

The proposed meeting of Episcopalians was held in 
October, 1784, in the city of New York. Sixteen 
ministers and eleven laymen were present. These 
were one minister from Massachusetts, one from Con- 
necticut, six from New York, one from New Jersey, 
three from Pennsylvania, two from Delaware, one 
from Maryland, and one from Virginia. Small as it 
was it had no authorization from the Church at large. 
This, however, was impossible, for as yet there was 
no organized Church for these persons to represent. 

Bishop White says : " The present meeting, like 
that in May, is here spoken of as a voluntary one, 
and not an authorized convention, because there were 
no authorities from the churches in the several States, 
even in the appointment of the members, which 
were made from the congregations to which they 
respectively belonged ; except of Mr. Parker, from 
Massachusetts, of Mr. Marshall from Connecticut, and 
of those who attended from Pennsylvania, even from 
these States, there was no further authority than to 
deliberate and propose." f " Not being possessed of 

* Life of Bishop Hvbart, p. 85. 

f Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Second 
Edition, p. 80. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 263 

sufficient authority to establish definitely any prin- 
ciples of government, they only recommended the 
course to be pursued." * 

This informal and non-representative meeting 
agreed upon certain principles to be presented to 
those of like ecclesiastical faith, and proposed a gen- 
eral convention to meet in 1785. All those present, 
nevertheless, were not bound by these recommenda- 
tions, for they were nothing more than recommenda- 
tory measures. So Bishop White says : * k It is proper 
to remark that although a clergyman appeared at this 
meeting on the part of the Church in Connecticut, it 
is not to be thought that there was an obligation on 
any in that State to support the above principles ; 
because Mr. Marshall read to the assembly a paper 
which expressed his being only empowered to an- 
nounce that the clergy of Connecticut had taken 
measures for the obtaining of an episcopate." The 
bishop also records that " some were startled at the 
very circumstance of taking the stand of an inde- 
pendent Church." f 

Up to this time the fragments of the Church of Eng- 
land in America had not been re-organized, and with 
the existing conditions no one could, at that time, 
tell whether they ever would secure an organization. 

In the meantime Dr. Seabu ry was prosecuting his 

* Wilson's Memoir of Bishop White, p. 101. 

f Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Second 
Edition, p. 81. 



264 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



cause with all diligence. He had received a copy of 
"the act of the legislature of Connecticut, respecting 
liberty of conscience in that State," which he thinks, 
" if it he fairly interpreted," should cover his case. 
He apprehends, however, " some difficulties that may 
not easily be got over." These are legal restrictions 
on the king of England and the bishops of the 
national Church. But he says : "I have declared 
my opinion, which is, as there is no law existing rela- 
tive to a bishop who is to reside in a foreign State, 
the archbishops are left to the general laws of the 
Christian Church, and have no need either of the 
king's leave or dispensation." * 

This was precisely Wesley's position. He contend- 
ed that the laws of the State Church no longer held 
as to the new American nation, and, consequently, 
he was " left to the general laws of the Christian 
Church," as taught in the New Testament, and the 
practice of the primitive Christian Church, and, so, 
without "the king's leave or dispensation," he or- 
dained ministers for the Methodists in America and 
sent them an episcopate. 

Dr. Seabury's friends began to look in other direc- 
tions for the coveted consecration. " Overtures were 
made for him without his knowledge to Cartwright 
of Shrewsbury, an irregular non-juror of the Separatist 
party in England, who with Price was consecrated 
tmcanonically in 1780 by a single bishop, just as 

♦Beardsley's Life of Bishop Seaburij, p. 130. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 265 



Robert Welton was consecrated by Ralph Taylor, 
and John Talbot by Taylor and Welton ; these men, 
Welton and Talbot, never being recognized as bishops, 
however, by the rest of the body, yet both coming 
to America and exercising secretly episcopal func- 
tions.'' * 

So Dr. Seabury's friends would have been willing, 
under the circumstances, to have him receive irreg- 

* Beard sley's Life of Bishop Seabury, p. 134. "Dr. Welton and 
Mr. Talbot — the oldest missionary of the Society for the Prop- 
agation of the Gospel — solicited and received consecration from 
the non-juring bishops. Dr. Welton was consecrated by Dr. 
Ralph Taylor in 1722; Mr. Talbot shortly afterward by Drs. 
Taylor and Welton. Political disqualification made them unable 
to perform publicly any episcopal acts; but there is reason to 
believe that they privately administered the rite of confirmation, 
and in some cases, at least, ordained clergy " (History of the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church in America, by the Bishop of Oxford, p. 160). 
" The Rev. John Talbot," says Dr. Beardsley, " the associate of Mr. 
Keith in his missionary travels, and afterward stationed at Bur- 
lington, N. J., visited England in 1120. While there lie, with 
Rev. Dr. Welton, was consecrated to the episcopal office by the non- 
juring bishops, and returned to Burlington. Welton came to Phila- 
delphia, and officiated for a time in Christ Church in that city. 
'Such a step,' says Hawkins, 'admits of no justification, but we may 
well suppose that he (Talbot) was led to take it by no personal am- 
bition, but by that strong and earnest conviction of the absolute 
necessity of an episcopate for the welfare of the Church in America 
of which his letters form such abundant testimony. It appears that 
he occasionally assumed the episcopal dress, and that he administered 
the ordinance of confirmation. Whatever confusion or schism might 
have arisen by the irregular exercise of the episcopal office was pre- 
vented by an order from the Privy Council for Welton's return to 
England, and the death of Mr. Talbot, which occurred in 1727.'" 
(History of Episcopal Church in Connecticut, vol. i, p. 252, note). 



2GG 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



ular consecration from one that the Church of 
England did not recognize as a bishop. It would 
appear also that Dr. Seabury himself would at 
that time have accepted such consecration, irregu- 
lar and illegitimate though it undoubtedly was es- 
teemed by many. Dr. Beardsley, his biographer, 
says : " Providentially the application to Cartwright 
was unnecessary." 

Dr. Seabury wrote to Cartwright as follows: 
" Some time ago a letter from you to Rev. Dr. 
Chandler, respecting some queries proposed by the 
Eev. Mr. Boucher, was put into my hands. This 
was the first information I had received concerning 
yourself or Bishop Price. And as I am in spiritual 
matters totally independent of any civil power, and 
have no manner of objection, but a sincere inclina- 
tion to conform myself, as near as possible, to the 
primitive Catholic Church in doctrine and discipline, 
that letter would have been immediately attended to 
by me, had I not primarily entered into a negotia- 
tion with the bishops in the North to obtain through 
them a free, valid, and purely ecclesiastical episco- 
pacy for the Church in Connecticut. Till within a 
few days I have had no decided answer from the 
North, and therefore did not sooner write to you 
because I could make no certain reply to your letter. 
But as the issue of the negotiation I was engaged in 
is such that I cannot in honor retreat, I can only at 
present return you my hearty and unfeigned thanks 



Okganization of the M. E. Church. 267 



for the candid communication and liberal sentiments 
which your letter contained, and to assure you that 
I shall ever retain the highest esteem and veneration 
both for yourself and Bishop Price, on account of 
the ready disposition which you both show to im- 
part the great blessing of a primitive episcopacy to 
the destitute Church in America. Should any cir- 
cumstances render it convenient to open a further 
correspondence on this or any other subject in which 
the interest of Christ's Church may be concerned, I 
flatter myself with a continuance of that spirit of lib- 
erality and Christian condescension which your letter 
manifested, and shall make it my study to return 
it in the most open and unreserved manner. 

" Be pleased to present my best respects to Bishop 
Price, and to accept the tender of unfeigned regard 
and esteem from, Right Pev. Sir, your most obedient 
and very humble servant." * 

Truly, " circumstances alter cases." Dr. Seabury 
had determined to obtain consecratio7i from the 
Church of England bishops if it were possible. If he 
had succeeded it is not clear that he would have 
regarded such men as Cartwright and Price as bish- 
ops at all ; but now that he cannot secure consecra- 
tion from the bishops of the State Church his views 
become exceedingly liberal, and these men who were 
not only non-jurors, but irregular non- jurors at that, 
who, according to the notions of High-Churchmen, 

* Beardsley's Life of Bishop Seabury, p. 135. 



268 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



had been uncanonically^ consecrated, lie addresses as 
Eight Rev. Bishops. 

He also remarks that he had " a sincere inclination 
to conform," "as near as possible, to the primitive 
catholic Church in doctrine and discipline." Before he 
was most anxious to conform to the Church of England. 
Wesley also was anxious to conform to the practice 
of the primitive Christian Church, and so, under the 
circumstances, he resorted to presbyterial ordination. 
Seabury would have " immediately attended " to Bish- 
op Cartwrighfs letter, had he not " entered into a 
negotiation" with the non-juring bishops in Scotland, 
but now, in view of possible failure in that direction, 
he takes the precaution to thank Bishops Cartwright 
and Price for " the ready disposition " the) 7 showed 
u to impart the great blessing of a primitive episco- 
pacy," and, "should any circumstances render it con- 
venient to open a further correspondence," he would 
avail himself of their " spirit of liberality and Chris- 
tian condescension." 

This means that if he does not succeed in Scotland 
he will come to them, and his spirit of liberality and 
love of a " primitive episcopacy " was growing so 
rapidly that if he failed with them he might be will- 
ing to accept the presbyterial plan of Dr. White. He 
might even submit to such an arrangement as that 
which "Wesley decided upon, for a High-Churchman 
would have to admit that Wesley's presbyterial 
ordination was quite as regular as a consecration by 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 269 



an uneanonically consecrated, irregular, non-juring 
English bishop who was not recognized by the law. 

Shortly after writing this letter, Seabury started 
from London for Scotland to secure consecration 
from the Scotch non-juring bishops, but before doing 
so he wrote to Bishop Kilgour, one of the Scotch 
non-jurors, and again referred to " catholic and primi- 
tive principles."* 

About a month before this the Rev. Richard 
Whatcoat and the Rev. Thomas Vasey, who had been 
ordained u on catholic and primitive principles," and 
the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., who had been " set 
apart " as a superintendent " on catholic and primi- 
tive principles," had sailed for America, and they 
landed in New York on the 3rd of November, 1784, 
thus giving to the American Methodists the only thing 
they needed to perform the full functions of a Chris- 
tian Church — namely, ordained ministers ; and also 
giving them the first Protestant episcopate recognized 
by any religious body after the United States had 
won their independence.f 

* Life of Bishop Seabury, p. 142. 

f The General Association of Virginia Baptists, in 1*776, by a unan- 
imous vote, established episcopacy and elected three ministers to that 
office. The Rev. Samuel Harris was first elected, and all that part of 
Virginia lying south of the James River was declared to be his dio- 
cese. Later in the year, they elected the Rev. John Waller and Elijah 
Craig, who were to have charge of all the State lying north of the 
James River. " The General Association had assumed powers not 
exceeded by any previous body of clergy in any age, Catholic or 
Protestant. Not only had it created and sent forth three diocesan 



270 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



On Dr. Seabury's arrival in Aberdeen he met with 
new and unexpected opposition. This was a letter 
written by the Rev. Dr. William Smith, a Scotchman 
by birth, formerly Provost of the College of Philadel- 
phia. At that time he was at the head of Washington 
College in Maryland. Subsequently he was elected 
bishop for Maryland, but, on account of opposition to 
an episcopate, never was consecrated.* 

In this letter Dr. Smith appealed to the Scotch 
non-juring bishops, if they valued their own peace 
and advantage as a Christian society, not to meddle 
with Seabury's consecration, and affirmed that it was 
" against the earnest, sound advice of the archbishops 
of Canterbury and York, to whom Dr. Seabury's 
design was communicated ; they not thinking him a 
fit person, especially as he was actively and deeply 
engaged against Congress ; that he would by this for- 

bishops. under the name of 1 apostles or messengers,' but it had 
taken them — unlike the English Baptists — from the jurisdiction of 
the individual churches of which they are members, to whose disci- 
pline they were no longer subject. Ordination of the ministers was 
removed from the churches and given to the bishops; it instructed 
the churches how to proceed in <-e they should commit offenses 
demanding their impeachment; and if in this lower court an indict- 
ment was sustained it provided for the organization of a high court, 
to be called : A General Conference of the Churches/ which should 
'have power to excommunicate or restore them ' " (Howell's Early 
Baptists of Virginia, p. 110). A reaction quickly followed, and the 
bishops disappeared from office and " gladly resumed their places 
beside their brother presbyters " (Howell's Early Baptists of Vir- 
ginia, p. 115). 

* McClintock & Strong's Cyclopaedia. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 271 



ward step render episcopacy suspected there, the peo- 
ple not having had time, after a total derangement of 
their civil affairs, to consider as yet of ecclesiastical ; 
and if it were unexpectedly and rashly introduced 
among them at the instigation of a few clergy only 
that remained, without their being consulted, would 
occasion it to be entirely slighted, unless with the 
approbation of the State they belong to, which is 
what they are laboring after just now, having called 
several provincial meetings together this autumn, to 
settle some preliminary articles of a Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, as near as may be to that of England 
or Scotland." * 

Such was the situation when Dr. Coke landed in 
New York. Dr. Seabury had not secured consecra- 
tion in England or in Scotland. It may be the Amer- 
ican Methodists did not know any thing about Sea- 
bury's movements. They did know, however, that 
there was no Church of England in the United States. 
They did know that the English State Church had 
no dominion in their country. They also knew that 
the fragmentary remains of the former Church of 
England had not been reorganized. Whatever they 
may have thought before in regard to relations with 
the Church of England, the situation now was en- 
tirely changed. No new episcopal church had been or- 
ganized, and, with the prejudices existing among the 
people generally, both inside and outside the churches, 

* Life of Bishop Seabury, p. 143. 



\ 



272 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



formerly associated with the English State Church, 
it was doubtful whether an acceptable Church would 
ever be organized with an episcopal government sim- 
ilar to that of the Church of Englahd. 

It is true that a gathering had been held in Octo- 
ber, but it is not certain that the Methodists knew 
any thing about it, while it is certain that they were 
not consulted or asked to co-operate. 

Under such circumstances, they were, by every 
natural right, free to act for themselves, no matter 
what had been their previous relations and prefer- 
ences. Even if the ecclesiastical conditions had not 
been so disorganized they had the same right to 
look after their own interests and perfect their own 
organization. 

The preface to the Prayer Book of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, which was ratified on the 16th of 
October, 1789, contains a recognition of this right to 
organize and for each Church to choose its own polity, 
and it recognizes as true churches the religious 
bodies which so organize, notwithstanding their dif- 
ferences in ecclesiastical polity. It says : 

" When in the course of divine Providence these 
American States became independent with respect to 
civil government, their ecclesiastical independence 
was necessarily included ; and the different religious 
denominations of Christians in these States were left 
at full and equal liberty to model and organize their 
respective Churches and forms of worship and dis- 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 273 

cipline, in such manner as they might judge most 
convenient for their future prosperity, consistently 
with the Constitution and laws of their country." 

Sometimes the remark is made that the Methodists 
in America separated from the Church of England, 
but the fact is that with the independence of the 
United States there ceased to be. any Church of Eng- 
land in the new nation, and, consequently, there was 
no Church of England to separate from. Neither 
did they separate from " The Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America," for it had 
not come into existence, and no one could tell 
whether it ever would have a being. It is true that 
the Methodists had had a close affiliation with the 
Church of England, but it is equally true that they 
varied in a marked manner from the State Church, 
though they cherished a warm regard for many 
things connected with it. 

Notwithstanding this relationship prior to the in- 
dependence of the United States, the American 
Methodists had a distinct ecclesiastical organization. 
They had their congregations and their rolls of mem- 
bers, their preachers and their distinct public 
services. 

Gradually they were taking form and steadily 

growing up during the course of years, and, amid 

all the ecclesiastical confusion connected with the 

Revolutionary War, this was the one body that was 

not in confusion. 
18 



274 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



In 1773 the first American Methodist Annual 
Conference was held in the city of Philadelphia, and, 
notwithstanding the difficulties of the times, such a 
conference was held every year thereafter. 

All along from 1773 American Methodism was a 
thoroughly organized body, with its congregations of 
worshipers, its regularly enrolled members! li p. its 
preachers in charge and their assistants, who gave 
the people pastoral oversight, its Annual Conference, 
where the preachers assembled in council for con- 
sultation in regard to the interests to which they had 
consecrated their lives, and to receive their several 
assignments, and to all was given unity of direction 
through Wesley's general assistant, who had the 
oversight of all. 

When the day of ecclesiastical distress came in 
other bodies, it had none. It had distress on account 
of lack of the sacraments, but not on account of or- 
ganization. All through these years it was a well- 
organized body. It did not separate from the 
Church of England, but when the Church of 
England in America fell to pieces it merely 
emerged from the ruins. When other ecclesias- 
tical bodies were in confusion it stood forth with 
a compactness which was an emphatic contrast, and 
while the isolated remains of the Church of England 
were struggling to effect a re-formation of the frag- 
ments broken up by State lines and sectional differ- 
ences, it was one organism, stretching far and wide 



ORGANIZATION OF THE M. E. CHURCH. 275 

over the country, and about the only body that could 
be said to have a national organization. 

What would be the outcome of the efforts of those 
who belonged to other communions no one could pre- 
dict with any certainty, but it was evident that 
American Methodism had already sufficient organiza- 
tion to go on with the work of a Christian Church, 
and especially now, since it had received ordained 
ministers who were duly authorized to administer the 
sacraments among their congregations. v 

The first Methodist minister Dr. Coke met in 
America was John Dickins, who was stationed in 
New York. Dickins had been a student in Eton 
College, England, and years before this he had pro- 
jected a seminary for Methodists in America. Coke 
promptly informed Dickins as to the work he came 
to perform, and his Journal, under date of the very 
day he landed, has this entry : " I, have opened Mr. 
"Wesley's plan to Brother Dickins, the traveling 
preacher stationed at this place (New York), and he 
highly approves of it; says that all the preachers 
most earnestly long for such a regulation and that Mr. 
Asbury, he is sure, will agree to it. He presses me 
earnestly to make it public, because, as he most justly 
argues, Mr. Wesley has determined the point, and 
therefore it is not to be investigated but complied 
with." * Coke, however, declined to disclose it any 
further until he had met and consulted with Erancis 

♦Coke's Journal, Nov. 3, 1784. 



276 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Asbury, who for years had been performing the 
duties of general assistant to Wesley. 

For this purpose Dr. Coke left New York and 
journeyed in a southerly direction, reaching Phila- 
delphia on Saturday evening of the same week. The 
next morning Dr. Coke preached for Dr. Magaw, 
the rector of St. Paul's, and in the evening for the 
Methodists at St. George's. On Monday Drs. Magaw 
and White called on Coke, and Dr. White invited him 
to occupy his pulpit on the ensuing Sabbath. Dr. 
Coke was also presented to the governor of the State, 
who was an acquaintance of Wesley, and an admirer 
of the writings of John Fletcher, the Vicar of Made- 
ley, who Wesley intended should be his successor 
in the management of British Methodism.* Coke 
could not at that time wait to accept Dr. White's 
courtesy, but pushed on southward, and the next 
Sunday, the 14th of November, he arrived with 
Whatcoat at Barratt's Chapel, near Frederica, in the 
State of Delaware. 

This chapel was called after Judge Philip Barratt, 
\vho had contributed liberally to its erection, and who 
was one of the prominent laymen of early Methodism 
in Delaware. When it was being erected a gentle- 
man asked what it was for, and being told that it was 
a place of worship for the Methodists he replied : 
" It is unnecessary to build such a house, for by the 
time that the war is over a corn-crib will hold them 

* Stevens's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, p. 170. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 277 



all." The prediction, however, was not verified, for 
they were stronger than ever before. The records of 
a few months after this visit of Dr. Coke at Bar- 
ratt's Chapel show that the American Methodists 
had one hundred and four preachers and eighteen 
thousand members. * 

Dr. Coke preached in the chapel and administered 
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to five or six 
hundred communicants. While Coke w T as preaching, 
Asbury entered, and after the sermon had been 
delivered they met for the first time, and the greet- 
ing was exceedingly cordial. 

That day Dr. Coke stated to Asbury the plan for 
the future management of American Methodism. It 
is to be inferred that Dr. Coke supposed no action 
was necessary on the part of any persons excepting 
himself and Asbury, the two superintendents, and 
that they would have complete control of all the 
measures necessary for carrying out the new plan. 

No doubt Asbury thought that as he had been 
general assistant he ought to be retained in the 
position of superintendent. He had previously pre- 
sented his claim to Wesley, and doubtless others had 
written in his interest. Edward Dromgoole, one of 
the early Methodist ministers and a member of the 
Christmas Conference, in a letter to Wesley, written 
on the 24th of May, 1783, said : 

" The preachers at present are united to Mr. As- 

* Minutes for 1785. 



278 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



bury, and esteem him very highly in love for his 
work's sake, and earnestly desire his continuance on 
the continent during his natural life, and to act as he 
does at present ; to wit, to superintend the whole work 
and go through all the circuits once a year. He is 
now well acquainted with the country, with the 
preachers and people, and has a large share in the 
affections of both ; therefore they would not will- 
ingly part with him." * 

Notwithstanding his pre-eminent claim to a chief 
position, Asbury declined to accept the superintend- 
ency without his election by the American preachers. 
Tie records in his Journal this decision, and also the 
impressions made upon him at his first meeting with 
Coke. He says : " I came to Barratt's Chapel ; here, 
to my great j'03 7 , I met these dear men of God, Dr. 
Coke and Eichard Whatcoat ; we were greatly com- 
forted together. The doctor preached on 'Christ — our 
wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.' 
Having had no opportunity of conversing with them 
before public worship, I was greatly surprised to see 
Brother Whatcoat assist by taking the cup in the ad- 
ministration of the sacrament. I was shocked when 
first informed of the intention of these my brethren 
in coming to this country. It may be of God. My 
answer then was, ' If the preachers unanimously choose 
me, I shall not act in the capacity I have hitherto done 
by Mr. Wesley's appointment.' " f 

* Arminian Magazine, 1791. f Asbury's Journal, Nov. 15, 1784. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 279 

Thomas Ware says that after Dr. Coke had shown 
his credentials to Mr. Asbury the latter said : " Doc- 
tor, we will call the preachers together, and the voice 
of the preachers shall be to me the voice of God. A 
Conference was accordingly agreed upon." * Mr. 
Asbury, in anticipation of this meeting with Dr. 
Coke, had also secured the presence of a number of 
preachers for the purpose of consultation, so that 
whatever was done should not be the act of one or 
two men merely. Dr. Coke says : " After dining in 
company with eleven of the preachers at our Sister 
Barratt's, about a mile from the chapel, I privately 
opened our plan to Mr. Asbury. He expressed con- 
siderable doubts concerning it, which I rather ap- 
plauded than otherwise, but informed me that he 
had received some intimations of my arrival on the 
continent; and as he thought it probable I might 
meet him on that day, and might have something of 
importance to communicate to him from Mr. Wes- 
ley, he had, therefore, called together a considerable 
number of preachers to form a council, and if they 
were of opinion that it would be expedient immedi- 
ately to call a Conference it should be done. They 
were accordingly called, and, after debate, were 
unanimously of opinion that it would be best imme- 
diately to call a Conference of all the traveling 
preachers on the continent." f 

* Methodist Quarterly Review, vol. xiv, 1832, p. 97. 

f Coke's Journal, in Arminian Magazine, Phila., 1789, pp. 243, 244. 



280 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

Asbury's record is : " The design of organizing the 
Methodists into an Independent Episcopal Church 
was opened to the preachers present, and it was 
agreed to call a General Conference to meet at Balti- 
more the ensuing Christmas ; as also that Brother 
Garrettson go off to Virginia to give notice thereof 
to our brethren in the South." * 

Coke says : "We therefore sent off Freeborn Gar- 
rettson like an arrow from North to South, direct- 
ing him to send messengers to the right and left, 
and to gather all the preachers together at Baltimore 
on Christmas eve. Mr. Asbnry has also drawn up for 
me a route of about a thousand miles in the mean- 
time. He has given me his black (Harry by name), 
and borrowed an excellent horse for me. I exceed- 
ingly reverence Mr. Asbury ; he has so much wisdom 
and consideration, so much meekness and love ; and 
under all this, though hardly to be perceived, so 
much command and authority. He and I have 
agreed to use onr joint endeavors to establish a school 
or college." f 

Thus at the very beginning, and before the Church 
was organized, true to early Methodist associations, an 
educational institution was proposed, and the univer- 
sity graduate and the man who studied Greek and He- 
brew without the aid of a college united in an effort 

* Asbury's Journal, Nov. 15, 1784. 

t Stevens's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, volume ii, 
pp. 171, 172. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 2S1 

to plant a college in the new country, and under the 
control of the new Church, the organization of which 
had not yet been effected. 

After the council of preachers had deliberated and 
decided upon a Conference, Garrettson instantly 
started on his mission. He says : " It was concluded 
that I should go through the continent and call a 
Conference at Baltimore immediately. Within six 
weeks, after traveling upward of twelve hundred 
miles, I settled the business, besides preaching almost 
every day once, and sometimes twice, and made my 
return." * 

Garrettson must have moved with great rapidity, 
and was by Coke very appropriately called his arrow, 
but he was not able to apprize every preacher. The 
Rev. Jesse Lee, the first historian of American Meth- 
odism, who was missed by this " arrow," and who was 
not present when the Conference convened, makes 
this note in his history : " Mr. Freeborn Garrettson 
undertook to travel to the South to give notice to all 
the traveling preachers of this intended meeting. 
But being fond of preaching by the way, and think- 
ing he could do the business by writing, he did not 
give timely notice to the preachers who were in the 
extremities of the work, and of course several of 
them were not at that Conference." f 

* The Experience and Travels of Mr. Freeborn Garrettson, Philadel- 
phia, 1791, p. 198. 

f Lee's History of the Methodists, pp. 93, 94. 



2S2 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



In addition to the movements of the flying " arrow" 
there were the jonrneyings of Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, 
the preachers who formed the council in Delaware, 
and doubtless others with whom they communicated. 
As a result, when the Conference assembled there were 
present nearly sixty preachers, many of whom had 
traveled great distances through the winter weather. 

This General Conference, which is commonly 
spoken of as the Christmas Conference, because it was 
in session during the Christmas week, really began on 
the 2ith of December, 1784. There has been a little 
confusion in the statements of some writers, but this 
date is fixed by Coke, Asbury, Whatcoat, and Black, 
who were present. 

At ten o'clock on that day this memorable Con- 
ference began its session. The Conference was com- 
posed almost entirely of young men. Leaving out 
Coke, Asbury, Whatcoat, and Yasey, the most expe- 
rienced minister had been in the service only ten 
years, one nine years, two eight years, two seven 
years, and the rest six, five, four, three, two years, 
and some less than a year. Coke was only thirty- 
seven, and Asbury was his senior by about two years. 
Yasey was about the same age as Asbury, and What- 
coat was about nine years older than Asbury. 

It was indeed a body of young men, but they were 
men who thoroughly understood the American spirit 
and the needs occasioned by the disturbed ecclesias- 
tical conditions of the country. William Black, who 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 283 



was there all the way from Nova Scotia, says : " Per- 
haps such a number of holy, zealous, godly men 
never before met together in Maryland, perhaps not 
on the continent of America." * Nearly sixty 
preachers out of eighty-one, according to Coke, assem- 
bled that 24th of December, in what was called the 
Lovely Lane Meeting-house, a modest structure 
which after several evolutions has recently had its 
lineal successor in one of the most magnificent eccle- 
siastical edifices in the city of Baltimore, and we may 
say in the country. 

Dr. Coke presided, and on taking the chair pre- 
sented the letter which Wesley had addressed on the 
10th of September, 1784, at Bristol, to "Dr. Coke, 
Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in America." f Will- 
iam Phoebus, one of the members of the Christmas 
Conference, says that Wesley sent Coke as " his apostle 
or messenger to us, with outlines of advice for us to 
adopt as we saw most conducive to the general good, 
recommending to us the New Testament for our 
pattern. Then, with his power and the fear of God, 
we assembled at the city of Baltimore, in the State of 
Maryland, and received Thomas Coke, LL.D., with 
his testimonials from the greatest man, to us, in the 
world." % 

The question then before the Conference w'as on 

* Stevens's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, p. 186. 
f See chap, iv, p. 229. 

% Quoted from an Apology by Phoebus in Myles's Chronological 
History of the People called Methodists. 



284 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



the acceptance of the plan which had been pro- 
posed, for one thing Asbury and other preachers 
insisted upon was that the whole matter must be 
left to the decision of the Conference. Consequently 
whatever was done, at that time, was not the action 
of Mr. Wesley, but the action of the Conference, 
and it is evident that, no matter what Mr. Wesley 
might have suggested, the preachers in America felt 
that it could not be binding without their concur- 
rence. 

It is needless, therefore, to take up space in 
any further discussion as to what Wesley intended. 
The real question is what the Conference under- 
stood and what the Conference did. However, 
those who were present show that they understood 
that Wesley intended them to form a Church, and 
in pursuance thereof, and of their own free will, 
they constituted themselves a Church. What else 
could Wesley mean when he gave them Articles of 
Keligion, and a Service Book, both varying some- 
what from those of the Church of England ? 

Asbury has said that " Mr. Wesley was called for 
near twelve or thirteen years repeatedly to do some- 
thing for his people in America ; " * and in his 
Journal, in a note under the entry of the fact that he 
had written an appeal to Mr. Wesley on the 16th of 
September, 1780, said : " The answer to this letter 
was made through Dr. Coke, Richard Whatcoat, and 

* Asbury 's Valedictory Address. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 285 



Thomas Yasey in 1784, who all came to America 
properly ordained." * 

They came as ordained ministers, and so were 
properly authorized to administer the sacraments ; 
but did they not come with a further mission ? 

Dr. Coke, in his sermon delivered at the consecra- 
tion of Asbury, said that " Mr. Wesley after long de- 
liberation saw it his duty to form his society in 
America into an independent Church ; but he loved 
the most excellent liturgy of the Church of England ; 
he loved its rites and ceremonies, and therefore 
adopted them in most instances for the present 
case." f 

William Watters, the first native American preach- 
er, and one of the members of the Christmas Confer- 
ence, says: "On the 25th of December, 1784, our 
Conference met in Baltimore to consider the plan of 
Church government which Dr. Coke brought over 
recommended by Mr. Wesley." J Thomas Ware, 
who also was present, referring to Wesley's letter, 
says: "It was read, analyzed, and cordially ap- 
proved." § Garrettson says : " We acceded to the 
method proposed by Mr. Wesley." || Watters, refer- 
ring to "the plan of Church government" which 

* Asbury's Journal, September 16, 1780, p. 309. 
f Coke's sermon at the consecration of Asbury. 
% Watters's Autobiography, 1806, p. 102. 
§ Rev. T. Ware,. in Methodist Quarterly Review, vol. xiv, 1832. 
I The Experience and Travels of Mr. Freeborn Garrettson, Philadel- 
phia, 1791, p. 198. 



286 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



the doctor had brought over, and which was "recom- 
mended by Mr. Wesley," says : " It was adopted and 
unanimously agreed to with great satisfaction, and 
we became, instead of a religious society, a separate 
Church." * 

Watters, again alluding to the action of the Christ- 
mas Conference, says: u We formed ourselves into a 
separate Church. This change was proposed to us 
by Mr. Wesley after we had craved his advice on the 
subject, but could not take effect till adopted by us, 
wdiich was done in a deliberate, formal manner, at a 
Conference called for that purpose, in which there 
was not one dissenting vote." f 

Thomas Ware further says : " We had met to con- 
gratulate each other, and to praise the Lord for hav- 
ing raised the mind of our excellent Wesley above 
the fable of uninterrupted succession, and thereby 
paved, our way to the delightful privileges we were 
henceforth to enjoy. The order of things devised by 
him for our organization as a Church filled us with 
solemn delight. It corresponded with what we did 
suppose we had a right to expect our God would do 
for us. We did, therefore, according to the best of 
our knowledge, receive and follow the advice of Mr. 
Wesley." X 

Freeborn Garrettson, in a letter to the Rev. Alex- 

* Watters's Autobiography, 1806, p. 102. 
f Ibid., 1806, p. 104. 

% Article on the Christmas Conference, Methodist Quarterly Review, 
1832. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 287 



ander McCaine, of the date of September 29, 1826, 
says : " I am fully of opinion that the members of the 
Christmas Conference were authorized by Mr. Wesley 
to organize themselves under an episcopal form of 
Church government. Nearly forty years have passed 
away, and I cannot charge my mind with every 
minutia / however, instructions were communicated 
from Mr. Wesley. As we were all young, humble, 
happy, and sincere, and well pleased with what he 
offered, I doubt not but that we followed his wishes 
to & punctilio." * 

Ware, in his letter of December 1, 1828, says : " I 
am fully persuaded the preachers in 1784 believed 
they were acting in accordance with the will of Mr. 
Wesley when they adopted the episcopal form or the 
plan of the general superintendence 7 ." Having de- 
cided to constitute a Church, the question of a name 
had to be considered. Ware remarks that " Dr. Coke 
was in favor of taking the name Methodist Episcopal 
Church." f In another place he says : " The ques- 
tion arose, 6 What name or title shall we take ? ' I 
thought I should be satisfied that we be denominated 
the Methodist Church, and so whispered to a brother 
sitting near me. But one proposed (I think it was 
John Dickins) that we should adopt the title of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. The motion, on Mr. 

* In Methodist Quarterly Review, 1830. 

f Letter of Thomas Ware, December, 1828, published in Defense of 
Truth, Baltimore, 1829. 



288 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Dickins' suggestion, was carried, without, I think, a 
dissenting voice." * 

Whatcoat says : " On the 24th we rode to Balti- 
more ; at ten o'clock we began our Conference, in 
which we agreed to form a Methodist Episcopal 
Church, in which the liturgy (as presented by the 
Rev. John Wesley) should he read, and the sacra- 
ments be administered by a superintendent, elders, 
and deacons." f 

So Asbury says: "It was agreed to form ourselves 
into an Episcopal Church, and to have superintend- 
ents, elders, and deacons." X 

Having agreed to have the office of superintendency, 
the question was, Who should be superintendents? 
Wesley had appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury to 
be joint superintendents, and had so stated in his 
circular letter to the American Methodists. This 
authority would have been deemed sufficient at any 
previous time and Asbury had accepted the appoint- 
ment as general assistant. Probably no one but 
Asbury at this time would have disputed the suffi- 
ciency of the authority. In one sense probably even 
he did not dispute it. But a new situation had de- 
veloped. The proposition was to become a complete 
church in every particular, but the strong organiza- 

* Thomas Ware's Autobiography, p. 106. 

f Means., p. 21, " The italics are his own." Quoted in Stevens's 
History of Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, pp. 183, 184. 
X Asbuiy's Journal, p. 377. 



Okganization of the M. E. Church. 289 

tion which had grown up in America had by its 
existence amid difficulties and its self-support acquired 
the right, at least to some extent, of self-government. 

Asbuiy refused to be a superintendent on the mere 
appointment of Mr. Wesley, and would consent only 
upon an election by the Conference. It is true that 
he took no risk, for the preachers had previously 
asked him to serve as general assistant, but his refusal 
secured two things ; first, the self-government of the 
Conference, and, secondly, the control of the episco- 
pal office by the Conference. 

The Rev. Nicholas Snethen said "that he has 
heard Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and several members 
of the Conference declare that Mr. Asbury refused 
to serve as a superintendent, or bishop, without the 
election of the Conference," * and the same writer 
has observed that " Asbury, in securing to the Gen- 
eral Conference the election of the bishops, b} 7 de- 
clining to serve under Mr. Wesley's appointment 
until he was elected by the American preachers, sub- 
served the cause of independence." f 

Asbury records in his Journal that both Dr. Coke 
and himself were unanimously elected joint super- 
intendents. He says: "Dr. Coke and myself were 
unanimously elected to the superintendency of the 
Church." J So that both superintendents became 

* Reply to O'Kelly's Apology. 

f Snethen's Sermon in the Christian World, 1841. 

X Asbury.'s Journal, vol. i, pp. 317, 318. 

19 



290 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

such not by the appointment of Mr. Wesley, but by 
the vote of the Conference. The Conference organ- 
ized the Church, and the Conference created and as- 
serted its control over its episcopate. 

On the second day Asbury was ordained deacon, 
and on the third day, which was Sunday, he was or- 
dained elder. Had there been no ministers in orders 
present, the Conference, as we have seen, had the 
natural right, and especially under the law of neces- 
sity, to have performed the service of ordination 
without them ; but as there were three ordained elders 
in the body it was proper that the service of ordina- 
tion should be conducted by them. Hence, in the 
ordination of Asbury, Dr. Coke was assisted by 
Whatcoat and Yasey, who were also ordained pres- 
byters. 

On Monday he was set apart or consecrated as su- 
perintendent. This service was performed by Dr. 
Coke, assisted by Whatcoat and Vasey, and also, at 
the request of Asbnry,* by the He v. Philip William 
Otterbein, a minister of the German Reformed 
Church. Otterbein was born in Germany, and after 
receiving a thorough classical and theological educa- 
tion was ordained at the Hague. If there was any* 
thing in succession (which is not claimed), then As- 
bury had the advantage of that which came through 
the English and the Continental lines ; for Coke had 
been ordained by a bishop of the Church of England, 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 94. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 291 

Whatcoat and Yasey had been ordained by three epis- 
copally ordained presbyters of the same church, and 
Otterbein represented that of Protestantism in Con- 
tinental Europe. It will not be claimed that there 
was any special merit in this. It is interesting only 
as a matter of history. 

Thirteen persons subsequently were ordained to the 
diaconate, and twelve of these were ordained elders.* 
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday were spent mainly 
in enacting rules. Lee says : " Being now formed 
into a church, a regular plan of proceeding was laid, 
and a form of discipline drawn up." f The title of 
this Discipline of 1784 calls the new organization 
" The Methodist Episcopal Church in America." 

One day was devoted to the consideration of the 
college project, and thus the Methodist Episcopal 
Church started out with an educational spirit in har- 
mony with the spirit of original Methodism which 
began in the University of Oxford. 

The Church, therefore, had been organized with 
Articles of Religion and a liturgy which was an 
abridgment of the English Book of Common Prayer. 
This service was at once put into use, and the su- 
perintendents and other elders wore gowfis like 
those used by the presbyters of the Church of Eng- 
land. 

Lee says: "At this time the prayer-book, as re- 

* Stevens's History of Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, p. 184. 
f Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 95. 



292 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



vised by Mr. "Wesley, was introduced among us; 
and in the large towns, and in some country places, 
our preachers read prayers on the Lord's day; 
and in some cases the preachers read part of the 
morning service on "Wednesdays and Fridays." He 
also remarks that " the superintendents and some of 
the elders introduced the custom of wearing gowns 
and bands."* 

According to the High Church view, the General 
Conference that organized the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in America was composed of clergy and 
laity ; for there were ordained and unordained men 
present, and so botli classes were represented in the 
transaction. According to Methodism of that day, 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 107. Dr. Abel Stevens 
says : " The Church, iu the emphasized language of Whatcoat, ' agreed 
to form a Methodist Episcopal Church, in which the liturgy (as pre- 
sented by the Rev. John Wesley) should be read.'' This organic pro- 
vision has never been formally repealed. The General Conference 
has, indeed, at a later session, directed that, for the ' establishment of 
uniformity in public worship,' ' the morning service shall consist of 
singing, prayer, the reading of a chapter out of the Old Testament, 
and another ont of the New, and preaching.' But it has not directed 
what the two lessons shall be, nor what the form of prayer ; its pre- 
scription would nearly correspond with the original ' Sunday Service,' 
and as the latter has never been formally abrogated, any Methodist 
society could legally adopt it. Public opinion has, however, silently 
but effectually rendered it obsolete. ... It was used for a few years, 
in both cities and country, in the principal churches ; but Sabbath 
love-feasts, or other extra services, frequently pre-occupied the time 
allotted to it, and, from being occasionally omitted, it at last fell into 
entire disuse." See Stevens's History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 
vol. ii, pp. 197, 198. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 293 



they were all clergymen, and the government of the 
Church was by the laity conceded to be in the hands 
of the ministers, so that the then legal power per- 
formed the work. The absent ministers acquiesced, 
and the lay members in the Churches accepted the 
new arrangement. 

Dr. Coke, when he stopped at Philadelphia, on his 
way to meet Asbury, apprised the members of what 
was proposed. Referring to that visit he says, in 
his Journal of Sunday evening, November 7, 1784, 
that he preached " to a large congregation in our 
own chapel on the necessity of the witness of the 
Spirit. After preaching I opened to the society our 
new plan of Church government, and I have reason 
to believe that they all rejoice in it."* 

Coke says of the Church in New York : " We ex- 
pected that this society would have made the greatest 
opposition to our plan, but, on the contrary, they 
have been most forward to promote it.' They have 
already put up a reading-desk and railed in a com- 
munion table." f 

Watters says the new arrangement "gave great 
satisfaction through all our societies." % 

Lee observes that' 'the Methodists were pretty 
generally pleased at our becoming a Church, and 
heartily united together in the plan which the Con- 

* Coke's Journal, in the Philadelphia Arminian Magazine, 1789. 
f Coke's Journal, in Arminian Magazine, Ainer., June, 1789. 
\ Watters's Autobiography, p. 102. 



294: The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



ference had adopted ; and from that time religion 
greatly revived." * 

Asbury states that " every heart leaped with 
joy," and " the members of society, and the congre- 
gations in America, embraced our Church form and 
order." f 

In the meantime, though the American Methodists 
knew nothing of it, Dr. Seabury had secured, on the 
14th of November, 1784, what, according to the 
Church of England, was an irregular consecration, 
from Scotch non-juring bishops, in a private house, 
in a narrow lane called Longacre, " where public car- 
riages never passed," in the city of Aberdeen, Scot- 
land. With this consecration he returned to Amer- 
ica, and readied Newport on the 20th of June, 1785, 
more than six months after the Methodist Episcopal 
Church had been organized, and when he did return 
he only represented a small number of the clergy in 
a limited locality. 

The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States had not yet been organized. On the 27th of 
September, 1785, more than nine months after the or- 
ganization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a con- 
vention of some who had been connected with the 
Church of England assembled in the city of Phila- 
delphia. There were representatives from seven 
States, from New York to Virginia, and in addition 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 107. 
f Asbury 's Valedictory Address. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 295 

South Carolina. " In consequence of their consul- 
tations," the Protestant Episcopal Church "became 
organized and united in those States under a general 
constitution which, though acted under, being the 
only one in existence, was not finally ratified until 
the convention of 1789."* 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, however, was 
united throughout the entire country. As yet in the 
new Protestant Episcopal Church there was no bish- 
op, for Bishop Seabury was not connected with it, 
but on the 14th of September, 1786, a State conven- 
tion assembled in Pennsylvania, and unanimously 
elected Dr. White to the bishopric. "Three only of 
the clergy of that State, besides himself, were present. 
The other two clergymen belonging to it afterward 
expressed their concurrence." f 

Dr. Provoost having been selected in New York, 
both of these ministers went to England, and on the 
4th of February, 1787, received consecration in Lam- 
beth Chapel. Returning in April they entered upon 
their episcopal duties in America. They represented 
the English succession and belonged to the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, which extended over a part of the 
country, while Bishop Seabury represented the suc- 
cession through the Scotch non-jurors, and had a 
separate organization in the State of Connecticut. 
Bishop Seabury and his diocese did not unite with 
the others until the convention of September, 1789. 

* Memoir of Bishop White, p. 106. f Ibid, p. 116. 



296 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



When Bishop Seabury offered to connect himself 
with the convention, some " entertained scruples in 
regard to the propriety of admitting him as a mem- 
ber,' 1 because he was then "in the receipt of half- 
pay " for service rendered as u chaplain to a British 
regiment during the war," but he was, nevertheless, 
admitted.* 

Now, the Protestant Episcopal Church had three 
bishops, but Bishop Provoost " was unwilling to recog- 
nize the validity of the Scotch succession." Dr. 
White believed it was valid, but others denied the 
validity of Bishop Seabnry's consecration. At one of 
the sessions of the convention of 1789, however, "a 
resolution was unanimously passed in favor of the 
validity of Bishop Seabury's consecration." f 

In the same year an application was made to the 
bishops for the consecration of the Rev. Edward Bass, 
who had been elected bishop by the clergy of Massa- 
chusetts and New Hampshire. Bishop Provoost was 
unwilling to join in a consecration with Bishop Sea- 
bury, because he looked upon that as a recognition of 
the Scotch succession, and also because he held that he 
was positively obligated not to consecrate a bishop un- 
til there were three bishops in the English line. Dr. 
White excused himself on the ground " that his faith 
had been impliedly pledged to the English prelates; 

* Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protectant Episcopal Church, Sec- 
ond Ed., p. 145 

f Wilson's Memoir of Bishop White, 1839, p. 118. 



Organization of the M. E. Church. 297 



. . . that three bishops should be consecrated in En- 
gland before any consecration in America, so that the 
succession should be continued in the English line." * 
So that, though the bishops were three in number, 
there were for practical episcopal purposes only two, 
and, according to the ideas of these two bishops, their 
Church organization was not complete until Septem- 
ber, 1790, when Dr. Madison, of Virginia, was conse- 
crated in England. 

The first Protestant Episcopal consecration of a 
bishop in America took place in 1792, when Dr. 
Claggett was consecrated bishop for Maryland. " It 
was performed by Bishop Provoost, assisted by the 
other two bishops consecrated in England and by 
Bishop Seabury. There was an apprehension on the 
part of the last named bishop that it was intended to 
exclude him from taking any part in the expected 
consecration. . . . But there was no objection to 
Bishop Seabury's uniting with them in the act, as 
this could not weaken the English line of succession, 
Bishop Provoost, for the sake of peace, waiving his 
objection to having any thing to do with the Scotch 
succession, which he thought irregular." f So when 
they had the canonical number of three bishops of 
the English line, and Bishop Seabury did not count 
whether he took part or not, he was permitted to take 
part. Bishop White presided at every subsequent 
consecration as long as he lived, but Bishop Seabury 

* Memoir of Bishop White, p. 119. f Ibid., p. 121. 



298 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

never again participated. He was not present at the 
Triennial Convention of 1795, where the Rev. Rob- 
ert Smith, D.D., was consecrated for South Carolina, 
and he died in February of the next year.* 

The Protestant Episcopal Church was not organ- 
ized until September, 1785, it was not united until 
1789, and it did not consider itself complete, with 
three perfectly valid bishops of the English line, 
until 1790. The Methodist Episcopal Church had 
started as a complete ecclesiastical organization years 
before this. It antedated by nearly a year the initial 
organization of the Protestant Episcopal Churcji, and 
by nearly six years the perfected organization of that 
communion ; and now it stretched from the extreme 
South through the North and into the British do- 
minions, and spread west of the Alleghanies and into 
Ohio, and about this time had 250 preachers, and 
76,153 members.f So in a little over five years the 
ministers had more than trebled, and the membership 
had more than quadrupled. 

Thus from the early evangelistic movement • called 
Methodism had evolved the organic form called the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, which at once entered 
upon its mission with vigorous vitality. 

* Bishop Seabury held that the Methodists had a presbyterial or- 
dination. In a letter to Dr. Smith, written in August, 1785, he said: 
" Mr. Wesley is only a presbyter, and all his ordinations presbyte- 
rian" (Life of Bishop Seabury, Third Edition, p. 230). 

f Minutes of 1791. 



The Superintendency. 299 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE SUPERINTENDENCY. 

AS the Conference had agreed to establish a super- 
intendency, and had elected two superintendents, 
we may pause to ask what it understood the nature of 
this snperintendency to be. 

The united testimony of the members of that Con- 
ference whose declarations have been quoted shows 
that the Conference understood it was adopting the 
sort of superintendency which Mr. Wesley had pro- 
posed. 

Therefore their act must be interpreted in the light 
of Mr. Wesley's intention. This throws us back upon 
his views of Church government and ecclesiastical 
orders. As has been shown, he believed that Church 
government might be that of the independent church, 
or an ass.ociation of churches under a presbytery, or 
by an episcopate supervising a number of congrega- 
tions and ministers. While he believed that Chris- 
tians were free to accept any of these forms of gov- 
ernment, he preferred the episcopal. His idea of 
the bishopric was that it did not possess any higher 
order than belonged to a presbyter, and that any 
presbyter actually performing the duties of oversight 



300 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



was a bishop ; and so he considered himself at once 
a presbyter and as true an episcopos as any man in 
England or in all Europe. 

With him a bishop was an overseer, and the differ- 
ence between a presbyter and a bishop was one not 
of clerical order, but of the function of oversight. 
According to this, a presbyter without oversight 
would be a mere presbyter, but a presbyter who was 
engaged in overseeing would be a bishop. In other 
words, the distinction would not be as to order, but as 
to office. 

Dr. Abel Stevens, the distinguished historian of 
Methodism, succinctly states Wesley's views in the 
following summary : 

Bishops and presbyters, or elders, are of the same order, and 
have essentially the same prerogatives ; but that, for conven- 
ience, some of this order may be raised to the episcopal office, 
and some of the functions originally pertaining to the whole 
order, as ordination, for example, may be confined to them ; 
the presbyter thus elevated being but primus inter pares — the 
first among equals — a presiding officer.* 

As the American Methodists accepted Wesley's 
proposals, they consequently accepted his ideas and 
expressed intention as to the nature of the superin- 
tendency, and if so they could not have regarded 
their superintendents as having any higher clerical 
order than that of presbyters, but that they were 
merely presbyters charged with the duty of oversight 
in the Church of God. 

* Stevens's History of Methodism, vol. ii, p. 221. 



The Superintendence*. 301 



In his circular letter to the American Methodists, 
Wesley said : 

As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both 
from the state and the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle 
them again, either with the one or the other. They are now 
at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primi- 
tive Church. 

Now, his idea of the bishopric of the New Testa- 
ment and of the primitive Church was simply an 
office of oversight filled by a presbyter, or, in other 
words, the work of oversight performed by an elder, 
and he understood that the Methodists in the United 
States were following his idea of " the New Testa- 
ment plan " of Church government.* 

The American Methodists of that day professed 
to follow the principles of the primitive Christian 
Church, and Ezekiel Cooper, who was present at 
the first meeting of Coke and Asbury, and who was 
one of the most prominent Methodist ministers of 
ihe period immediately following the organization of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, says : 

From that time the Methodist societies in the United 
States became an independent Church, under the Episcopal 

* In a letter written February 25, 1785, to Mr. John Stretton, of 
Harbor Grace, Newfoundland, Mr. Wesley says: " Last autumn Dr. 
Coke sailed from England, and is now visiting the flock in the mid- 
land provinces of America, and settling them on the New Testament 
plan, to which they all willingly and joyfully conform, being all united, 
as by one Spirit, so in one body " (Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., 
vol. vii, p. 226). 



302 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



mode and form of government — designing, professing, and 
resolving "to follow the Scriptures, and the primitive 
Church," according to the advice and counsel of Mr. Wes- 
ley.* 

They knew what Mr. Wesley meant by following 
" the Scriptures and the primitive Church," and, in 
acting according to his wishes, they accepted his ideas 
on this point. 

Dr. Coke, who presented the new arrangement to 
the Christmas Conference, "argued that the plan of 
general superintendency was in fact a species of epis- 
copacy." f Now, when he told the American preach- 
ers that the proposed " superintendency was in fact a 
species of episcopacy," he meant that, while it was a 
kind of episcopacy, it was different from some other 
kind or kinds of episcopacy. 

That the plan of superintendency was for the pur- 
pose of oversight, and was, therefore, an episcopate, is 
plain, and the simple question is as to what " species 
of episcopacy" it was. We have seen Wesley's 
view. What was Coke's \ On his voyage to Amer- 
ica he made the following entry in his Journal, under 
date of Monday, Oct. 18, 1784 : 

I have waded through Bishop Hoadley's Treatises on Con- 
formity and Episcopacy, 565 pages octavo. He is a powerful 
reasoner, but is, I believe, wrong in his premises. However, 
he is very candid. In one place he allows the truth of 

* Cooper on Asbury, p. 109. 

f Letter of Thomas Ware, December, 1828, published in Defense of 
Truth, Baltimore, 1829. 



The Superintendency. 



303 



St. Jerome's account of the presbyters of Alexaudria, who. as 
Jerome informs us, elected their own bishop for two hundred 
years, from the time of St. Mark to the time of Dionysius. In 
another place he makes this grand concession, namely : l 'I 
think not an uninterrupted line of succession of regularly 
ordained bishops necessary " (page 489). In several other places 
he grants that there may be cases of necessity which may 
justify a presbyterian ordination. But he really seems to 
prove one thing. That it was the universal practice of the 
Church, from the latter end of the lives of the apostles to 
the time of the Reformation, to invest the power of ordina- 
tion in a superior Church officer to the presbyters, whom the 
Church soon after the death of the apostles called bishop by 
way of eminence." 

From this it is to be inferred that he did not be- 
lieve in uninterrupted succession of bishops, or that a 
bishop was of a higher order than a presbyter, but 
that he was a presbyter occupying a superior office, 
and called bishop to distinguish this " superior church 
officer " from the other presbyters. It is certain that 
though he had been appointed superintendent by 
"Wesley he did not consider his superintendence 
gave him any higher clerical order, but that he re- 
mained a presbyter. In the certificate of consecra- 
tion which he gave Asbury, Coke speaks of himself 
as a " presbyter," and also as a " superintendent of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in America," * thus 
acknowledging his order to be that of an elder while 
his office was that of a superintendent. 

In a foot-note to his sermon delivered when Asbury 

* Asbury's Journal, p. 378. 



301 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



was formally inducted into the superintendency, Coke 
says, in reference to his use of the phrase, " the bishop 
of Philadelphia," " I here use the word bishop in its 
present sense, as signifying an officer of the Church 
superior to the presbyters." * In his mind a bishop 
is an officer who is superior as such to the body of 
presbyters, but not superior in order. Consequently, 
though Superintendent Coke styles himself, in the 
certificate he gave Asbury, " a presbyter," showing 
that he recognized that to be his order, while the sn- 
perintendency, whose functions he then was exercis- 
ing, was his office, so in the certificate there is not 
a word about an episcopal order, but the simple state- 
ment that "he did set apart the said Francis Asbury 
for the office of a superintendent." f In his estima- 
tion, therefore, the superintendency was an office but 
not an order, and the officer who was superintendent 
was an elder in order. 

The founders of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
defined their superintendency as an office, while they 
never officially speak of the order of bishops or super- 
intendents. Jesse Lee, who was one of the leading 
ministers of that day, and who was thoroughly in- 
formed respecting the early views and transactions, 
says: "At this Conference we formed ourselves into 
a regular Church by the name of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, making at the same time the episcopal 

* Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, July, 1840. 

f Bangs's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. i, p. 157. 



The Superintendency. 



305 



office elective." * The early Minutes (1785) also use 
the word " office" and speak of the position as the 
" episcopal office." Indeed, as Lee and the Minutes 
show, the early Church never spoke of the episco- 
pacy as an order, nor as an order and an office, but 
solely as an office, which they made elective; and the 
only conclusion which can be drawn is that they did 
not consider their episcopacy a distinct and higher 
order, but simply an office of superintendency. 

This, then, was " the species of episcopacy " to 
which Dr. Coke referred. There were bishops who 
professed to have a higher clerical order than that 
which was possessed by presbyters. This, however, 
was a different <k species of episcopacy." It was an 
episcopacy which was an office of superintendency 
without the higher order. 

Ezekiel Cooper, who records that the Christmas 
Conference and the fathers of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church followed the example of the New Testament 
and the early Christian Church, tells us what was 
understood to be the teaching of the primitive 
Church. He says : 

In the primitive Church the terms overseers, presbyters, 
bishops, and elders were indiscriminately appointed to the 
same order of nien.f 

So, in following the primitive Church, they made 
their superintendents presbyters. Cooper does not 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 94. 
f Cooper on Asbury, p. 215. 

20 



306 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



leave us to an inference, but clearly affirms "the 
validity of our ordination and our authorized min- 
istry as a presbyterial episcopacy." * Again lie says : 

The Methodist presbyterial episcopacy is nearly that which 
Archbishop Usher proposed and recommended to King 
Charles I. for the national episcopacy of the Church of England, 
and which the king agreed to ; but the irritation of parties at 
that time ran so high, and the proposal of Usher and the 
agreement of the king being delayed so long, that the propo- 
sition was rejected. But it stands as a proof that "presby- 
terial episcopacy " was recommended and considered valid by 
Usher; as it also was by others of the most illustrious prelates 
of the Church of England, and the most eminent divines of 
the Reformation, f 

This shows very conclusively that this author and 
early authority understood that a " presbyterial epis- 
copacy " was the "species of episcopacy" which the 
Methodist Episcopal Church had in its superintend- 
ency. The incumbent of its episcopate was a pres- 
byter. 

Whatcoat says it was " agreed " that the ordinations 
should be " by a presbytery," and again, that the or- 
dinations should be " by imposition of the hands of 
the superintendent and elders." % The superintend- 
ent was to be one of the presbyters who would per- 
form the service of ordination, for the ordinations 
were to be " by a presbytery," and, consequently, the 
superintendent was himself a presbyter. 

* Cooper on Asbury, p. 215. \ Ibid., p. 230. 

\ Memoirs, p. 21; Stevens's History of tJte Methodist Episcopal 
Church, vol. ii, p. 184. 



The Superintendence. 307 



An indication of the fact that the superintendents 
regarded themselves as presbyters, and not of a higher 
order, is found in the fact that Coke and Asbury did 
not wear such episcopal robes as they had frequently 
seen on the bishops of the Church of England, but 
each wore the gown of an Anglican presbyter. 

One of the pioneer preachers thus describes an or- 
dination service which took place in Uniontown, Pa., 
in 1788 : 

Mr. Asbury officiated, not in the costume of the lawn-robed 
prelate, but as the plain presbyter in gown and band, assisted 
by Richard Whatcoat, elder, in the same clerical habit. . . . 
Not only did the preachers appear in sacerdotal robes, but the 
morning service was read as abridged by Mr. Wesley.* 

Thus by wearing the presbyter's gown they recog- 
nized the fact that though they were superintendents 
in office they were presbyters in order. 

William Phoebus, who was a member of the Christ- 
mas Conference, remarks that Wesley recommended 
" the New Testament for our pattern." and says, 
" We thought it not robbery to call our society a 
Church, having in it, and of it, several presbyters 
and a president." f The superintendent was a pre- 
siding officer, and so Wesley appointed Coke " to 
preside over the flock of Christ." 

We have noticed that the Conference made " the 

* Strickland's Life of Asbury, p. 179. 

f Myles's Chronological History of the People Called Methodists, 
p. 165. 



308 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



episcopal office elective, and the elected superintendent 
amenable to the body of ministers and preachers." * 
This is very significant, for a higher order bishopric 
is not amenable to ministers of a lower order. That 
these superintendents were made amenable to the 
ministers and preachers shows that they regarded and 
treated the superintendency not as an order, but as 
an office. In the higher-order episcopacy the lower 
orders are amenable to it, but here the superinten- 
dents were amenable to the very men they superin- 
tended. 

It is to be remembered that this Conference and 
all the early General Conferences w T ere composed of 
all the preachers, whether they were elders or not. 
When the Christmas Conference opened there were 
only three, including Superintendent Coke, who had 
received elder's orders ; and even after others were 
ordained at this Conference " the body of the minis- 
ters and preachers" was composed mainly of unor- 
dained men. 

That they made " the elected superintendent amen- 
able to the body of ministers and preachers," most of 
whom had no orders at all, shows that they could not 
have regarded their superintendency in the light of a 
ministerial order, but rather as an executive office. 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 94; Minutes of 1785. The 
Discipline made at the Christmas Conference has the following: 
"To whom is the superintendent amenable ? Ans. To the Confer- 
ence, who have power to expel him for improper conduct, if they see 
it necessary." — (Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 98). 



The S uperintendency. 



309 



On the idea of an office, simply, there was some reason 
in all having a voice in the election of a superintend- 
ent, because all were to be superintended by him ; 
and, so, for the same reason, there was propriety in 
his being responsible to them ; but the arrangement 
would be an ecclesiastical absurdity, if the superin- 
tendency were a higher order, for the superintendent 
to be amenable to those of a lower order and to those 
who had no orders at all. 

Even if the Conference had been composed entirely 
of elders, this amenability would imply that the su- 
perintendents were not of a higher order, and such 
amenability could only be on the ground that the su- 
perintendency was merely an office of an executive 
or jurisdictional character, and hence responsible to 
the body which created it. 

Another remarkable action of the Christmas Con- 
ference, as shown by the Discipline therein prepared, 
appears in the second question and answer: 

What can be done in order to the future union of the Meth- 
odists ? Am. During the life of the Reverend Mr. Wesley, 
we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the Gospel, ready, in 
matters belonging to Church government, to obey his com- 
mands ; and we do engage after his deatli to do every thing that 
we judge consistent with the cause of religion in America, 
and the political interest of these States, to preserve and pro- 
mote our union with the Methodists in Europe.* 

The only point that need be considered here is 
that which concerns their relation to Mr. Wesley. 
* Lee's History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 95. 



310 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



The members of the Conference recognized him as 
their supreme ecclesiastical authority, and agreed, " in 
matters belonging to Church government, to obey 
his commands." They consequently recognized him 
as occupying a higher position in relation to them 
than their own superintendents. It follows, there- 
fore, first, that haying thus acknowledged him as 
their supreme authority in ecclesiastical affairs they 
must have accepted his doctrine as to the episcopacy, 
namely, that a bishop had no higher order than a 
presbyter ; and, secondly, in making Mr. "Wesley, who 
was only a presbyter in order, the chief authority in 
the Church they practically declared there was no 
higher order. 

Further, that they recognized a presbyter as su- 
preme, even over their own superintendents, shows 
that they did not esteem their superintendency or 
episcopacy an order above the eldership, for certainly 
they would not have made one of an inferior order 
superior in authority to those of a higher order. 

The Christmas Conference also placed the follow- 
ing in the Discipline : 

As the ecclesiastical as well as civil affairs of these United 
States have passed through a very considerable change by the 
Revolution, what plan of Church government shall we here- 
after pursue ? Ans. We will form ourselves into an Episcopal 
Church under the direction of superintendents, elders, dea- 
cons, and helpers,* etc. 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, pp. 95, 96. 



The Superintendency. 311 



They declared they were accepting Mr. Wesley's 
plan, and, as they accepted the very title of superin- 
tendent, which Wesley had given, as well as the men 
he had appointed, the only reasonable supposition is 
that they accepted the superintendency in the sense 
Wesley intended ; and, as his declaration was " that 
bishops and presbyters are the same order" they 
could not have understood that he was giving or that 
they were receiving officers of a higher order than 
that of presbyters; and, if so, they must have un- 
derstood the word superintendent as indicating, not 
an order, but an office. 

This is further indicated by the fact that they 
voted Asbury to be a superintendent before he had 
become either elder or deacon. So Wesley had 
appointed him to be superintendent, and evidently 
Wesley considered his mere appointment sufficient to 
give the authority without any action on the part of 
the Conference. The Conference, however, by its 
vote affirmed its power to determine who should be 
superintendent. 

Now, that Wesley should make a man not in orders 
a superintendent shows that he did not consider the 
position an order ; and the action of the Conference 
in electing a man superintendent before he was in 
orders shows that the Conference did not look upon 
the superintendency as an order but as an office of 
supervision. 

But it may be said that the superintendent was 



312 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



set apart with a formal service. That may be, and 
it was perfectly proper that there should be some 
formality and some religious service used in setting 
apart one who was to occupy such a responsible 
position in the Church, but it does not follow that 
the service gave an order. A service cannot give 
any thing more than that which was intended by those 
who employ the service, and the nature of such a 
service is to be interpreted by the declared intention 
of those who use the service. The question at issue, 
therefore, is whether this service was intended to 
place the presbyter in a higher order. 

Mr. Wesley, who gave the service, could not have 
intended it in that sense, for he held that there was 
no higher order than that of the eldership, and said, 
at the very time he gave them the service, that 
" bishops and presbyters are the same order." That 
the Christmas Conference held Wesley's view is 
asserted by Bishop Simpson in his Cyclopedia of 
Methodism. Referring to the ordinations performed 
by Mr. Wesley, he says : 

This ordination was performed because, according to his 
view of the primitive episcopacy, bishops and presbyters were 
of the same order. This view was entertained by the ministers 
who met in Conference or convention in 1784 and organized 
the Methodist Episcopal Church.* 

So the members of Conference, accepting from their 
supreme ecclesiastical authority this idea of the prim- 

*Art. "Methodist F.piseopacy." 



The Superintended y. 



313 



itive episcopacy, could not have supposed that in using 
such a service they were giving any order above the 
eldership, for according to that view they did not 
believe there was any higher order. Therefore, look- 
ing upon the superintendency only as an office — " the 
episcopal office," as they termed it — they must have 
regarded the ceremony simply as a formal service of 
installation inducting the elected person, in an ap- 
propriate and solemn manner, into said office. 

That there may have been some inexactness in the 
use of terms by some of the members of the Con- 
ference is quite possible, and perhaps the wonder 
should be that there was not more ; for Asbury says, 
" We were in great haste, and did much business in 
a little time."* Indeed, we should not be surprised 
if it be discovered that even Mr. Wesley lacked 
precision in this very thing, for the service for the 
American Methodists was evidently prepared in great 
haste, and is characterized by elimination rather than 
reconstruction. A little further on we will see that 
the American Methodists did not consider that the 
service had any virtue in the way of adding any thing 
to the elected officer. The first official act in the 
Conference was the presentation and reading of 
Wesley's Circular Letter. This was the charter un- 
der which the Conference acted, and every thing 
that was done must be interpreted in the light of 
this document. 

* Asbury's Journal, p. 378. 



31i The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



The part which bears specially upon the superin- 
tendency is that which declares in unmistakable 
terms the parity of bishops and presbyters as to or- 
der. Mr. Wesley's words are : " Lord King's account 
of the primitive Church convinced me many years 
ago that bishops and presbyters are the same order, 
and consequently have the same right to ordain." 

With such a declaration, so explicitly made, the 
members of the Christmas Conference could not have 
supposed Wesley was giving them an episcopacy that 
was higher in order than the eldership, and as they 
accepted his views of the primitive episcopacy they 
could not have intended to elect their superintend- 
ent to a higher order than that possessed by the 
presbyters. 

This is a vital principle in Methodism. It was only 
on this principle that Wesley undertook to justify 
his ordinations. He held that if it was not true he 
had no right to ordain, but if it was true then he had 
a right to ordain ; and it was on this principle that 
the early American Methodists justified their course. 

Every thing connected with the organization of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church is to be read in the 
light of this declaration — " Bishops and presbyters are 
the same order." It is the key-note of every utter- 
ance. Careless expressions or inaccurate use of words 
caunot affect this. The doubtful is to be interpreted 
in the light of the clear, and not the certain by that 
which is uncertain. 



The Superintendence. 



315 



The whole organism was based on this principle 
that there was no higher order in the Church than 
that possessed by a presbyter, and it is not to be sup- 
posed that the organizers of the Church did any thing 
which was a violation of this fundamental principle 
of their charter of rights. 

Consequently, as there was no distinction of order 
between the superintendent and any other presbyter, 
the distinction must have been one of office ; and all 
the facts cited show that the Conference which or- 
ganized the Methodist Episcopal Church held views 
which harmonized with the teaching of Wesley that 
bishops were the same in order as presbyters, and 
viewed the superintendency as a superior office, and 
the superintendent merely as a superior officer. Their 
effort was to return to the simple episcopate of the 
early Christian Church. 



316 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE EPISCOPATE FROM 1784 UNTIL THE DEATH OF ASBUEY. 

THE Christmas Conference in its action did not 
use the word bishop in reference to its superior 
officers, but referred to them as superintendents. 
When Dr. Coke printed the sermon which he deliv- 
ered at the setting apart of Asbury he added a foot- 
note, as we have seen, in which he denned bishop as 
signifying a superior officer in the Church. 

The Conference at which the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was organized adjourned on the 2d of Jan- 
uary, 1785. That year the Conferences convened as 
heretofore, the last being held on the 15th of June. 
After the Conferences closed the Minutes were pub- 
lished.* Probably those of this year were issued in 
the latter part of June, or some time in July. They 
contain a copy of Wesley's Circular Letter, and after 
it appears the following statement : 

Therefore at this Conference we formed ourselves into an 
independent Church; and, following the counsel of Mr. John 

* " This year and the two succeeding years the Minutes were called 
' The Minutes of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in America.' The business of the three Conferences was all 
arranged in the Minutes as if all had been done at one time and place. 
And for the first time we had the Annual Minutes printed, which prac- 
tice we have followed ever since" (Let's Hist, of the Methodists, p. 118). 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbuky. 317 



Wesley, who recommended the episcopal mode of Church gov- 
ernment, we thought it best to become an Episcopal Church, 
making the episcopal office elective, and the elected superin- 
tendent or bishop amenable to the body of ministers and 
preachers. 

This is the first time the word bishop appears in 
that which purports to be an official or semi-official 
document. It did not appear in the form of Disci- 
pline adopted by the Christmas Conference, neither 
does it appear in the record given in Lee's History. 

In the same Minutes there is a foot-note referring 
to the word superintendents which Wesley uses in his 
letter. It is as follows : 

As the translators of our version of the Bible have used the 
English word bishop instead of superintendent, it has been 
tli ought by us that it would appear more scriptural to adopt 
their term bishop* 

This suggestion, and the use of the form "superin- 
tendent or bishop" in the other paragraph, were with- 
out the authority of the Conferences. The insertions 
were evidently the work of the editor or editors who 
combined the reports of the three Conferences. 

The superintendents themselves appear to have 
prepared or supervised the preparation of the Minutes 
for publication, and so the editors had opportunity 
to make such insertions or comments as they thought 
necessary for the elucidation of various points, and 
these insertions were made, no doubt, in good faith on 

* Minutes for 1785. 



318 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



the part of the editor ; but, as the Conferences had 
adjourned before the combined Minutes appeared, the 
editor and not the Conference is to be held responsi- 
ble for them. Sometimes, however, it is rather diffi- 
cult to distinguish the work of the editor from the 
action of the Conference. 

It is probable that, to some extent, both Coke and 
Asbury were affected by the example of Wesley, who, 
having gradually created his government, would not 
divide the responsibility with others. In a letter of 
the 13th of January, 1790, a little more than a year 
before his death, he said: "As long as I live the 
people shall have no share in choosing either stewards 
or leaders among the Methodists." * 

So the Rev. Thomas Ware says : 

Mr. Wesley had been in the habit of calling his preachers 
together, not to legislate, but to confer. Many of them he 
found to be excellent counselors, and he heard them respect- 
fully on the weighty matters which were brought before them ; 
but the right to decide all questions he reserved to himself. 
This he deemed the more excellent way ; and as we had volun- 
teered and pledged ourselves to obey, he instructed the doctor, 
conformably to his own usage, to put as few questions to vote 
as possible, saying, "If you, Brother Asbury, and Brother 
Whatcoat are agreed it is enough." f 

It is just possible that Coke and Asbury thought 
they had the right to do some things without receiv- 
ing authority from the Conference, and they may 
have carried this principle into the matter of editing 

* Dr. Jenning's Exposition, p. 92. f Ware's Life, p. 130. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 319 

the early Minutes, either making the comments them- 
selves or allowing others to make them. 

As early as November 27, 1785, we find Asbury 
engaged in reconstructing the Discipline, though 
there is no record that he was given authority to do 
so. His Journal of that date says : 

For some time past I had not been satisfied with the order 
and arrangement of our form of Discipline; and, persuaded 
that it might be improved without difficulty, we accordingly 
set about it, and during my confinement in James City com- 
pleted the work, arranging the subject-matter thereof under 
their proper heads, divisions, and sections. 

At that period he was detained by a swollen foot, 
and so he occupied his time in rearranging the Disci- 
pline. Up to that time the Discipline consisted of a 
series of questions and answers, and Asbury's idea of 
arranging the matter systematically, "under their 
proper heads, divisions, and sections," was in the line 
of improvement, even if it was not authorized. 

Dr. Coke had left America shortly after the Christ- 
mas Conference, but returned in 1787, in time for the 
meeting of the Conference at Baltimore on the first 
day of May. This was a stormy session. 

The nature and cause of the strife will throw some 
rays of light upon the nature of the new episcopate 
as viewed by those immediately interested. The 
Church represented in the Conference of 1784 for- 
mally agreed " in matters belonging to Church gov- 
ernment to obey" Wesley's "commands." 



320 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



This may have been at the request of Mr. Wesley, 
or at the suggestion of Dr. Coke, but there is no clear 
information on that point. Mr. Asbury, in a letter to 
the Rev. Joseph Benson, says : " After the Revolution 
we were called upon to give a printed obligation, which 
here follows, and could not be dispensed with — it must 
be: 'During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we 
acknowledge ourselves his sons in the Gospel, ready 
in matters belonging to Church government to obey 
his commands,' " etc.* Instead of separating entirely 
from Mr. Wesley when they made their new organ- 
ization in 1784, they voluntarily and formally decided 
to continue their relationship, and to recognize him as 
their head and supreme authority. They conceded 
him the chief place of power, and recognized him 
as almost a despotic ruler over the new Episcopal 
Church. They acknowledged him to be above the 
Conference, and above Superintendent Coke and Su- 
perintendent Asbury. Of course, this all grew out of 
his peculiar relations as founder and head of general 
Methodism. 

Wesley evidently understood that he held the 
highest official relation to American Methodism, and 
he asserted the right to nominate superintendents for 
the new Church, though he did not directly appoint 
them as he did at the beginning. He held also that 
he had a right to direct the superintendent and, 
through him, the preachers. 

* Quoted in Atkinson's Centennial Hist, of Amer. Meth, p. 56. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 321 

In view of this power which he believed he pos- 
sessed, and which he believed the American Method- 
ists had conceded him, he wrote the following letter 
to Dr. Coke : 

London 7 , September 6th, 1786. 
Dear Sir : I desire that you would appoint a General Con- 
ference of all our preachers in the United States to meet at 
Baltimore on May the first, 1787, and that Mr. Richard What- 
coat may be appointed superintendent with Mr. Francis Asbu- 
ry. I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend and brother, 

To the Rev. Dr. Coke. JoHN WeSLEY ' 

When the Conference met in 1787 Dr. Coke an- 
nounced the desire of Mr. Wesley, and the Confer- 
ence understood Wesley to direct that Whatcoat 
should be made a superintendent. Lee says: "Mr. 
Wesley also directed that Richard Whatcoat should be 
ordained a joint superintendent with Mr. Asbury." * 
In this extract, by the way, is an example of the inex- 
actness of some of the words and phrases in use in the 
early day, and an illustration of the qualified sense in 
which some of them are to be understood. Thus Lee 
uses the word ordained, whereas Wesley in his letter 
does not use that word, but the word " appointed." 
Lee says : 

When this business was brought before the Conference most 
of the preachers objected, and would not consent to it. The 
reasons against it were, 1. That he was not qualified to take 
the charge of the Connection. 2. That they were apprehensive 
that if Mr. Whatcoat was ordained Mr. Wesley would recall 
Mr. Asbury, and he would return to England.! 



* Lee's History of the MetJwdists, p. 126. f Ibid., p. 126. 
21 



322 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

So Garrettson says : 

The fear arising in the minds of many of the members of 
this Conference lest Mr. Wesley should recall Mr. Asbury was 
the cause of R. Whatcoat's appointment being rejected." * 

Yery often the most influential reason is not that 
which people give first. So here the first reason, 
namely, Whatcoat's lack of qualification, which Lee 
gives, does not appear very strong, for subsequently, 
in 1800, they elected this very man bishop, and, what 
is more, he was the first elected after the Conference 
of 1784, and that in competition with this very his- 
torian, Jesse Lee. 

Doubtless the question of relative qualification had 
some weight, but the determining reason was the 
second given by Lee, and which is corroborated by 
the evidence of Garrettson ; namely, that Wesley 
would order Asbury back to England and that 
Asbury would obey. 

This was a confession of Wesley's acknowledged 
authority. Wesley had issued his order naming the 
minister he desired to be superintendent. The Con- 
ference did not deny that supreme authority had been 
conceded him, and now the ministers reveal a con- 
sciousness of his conceded power to remove one of 
their superintendents from his office. 

Mr. Asbury said of Wesley : 

He rigidly contended for a special and independent right 
of governing the chief minister or ministers of our order, 

* Garrettson's Semi- Centennial Sermon, p. 20. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 323 



which in our judgment meant not only to put him out of 
office, but to remove him from the continent to elsewhere 
that our father saw fit, and that notwithstanding our con- 
stitution, and the right of electing every Church officer, and 
more especially our superintendent. We were told li not till 
after the death of Mr. Wesley could our constitution have its 
full operation."* 

Wesley claimed that lie had this power, and the 
preachers saw there was some ground for the claim, 
in his relation as founder and in their resolution of 
submission. This reveals very clearly the status of 
the superintendents as to clerical order, and it must 
be manifest that they had no order above that of 
elders. 

If Mr. Wesley was not in order equal to Mr. 
Asbury, the superintendent, and in official position 
superior to him, how could he command him ? But 
"Wesley is in order only a presbyter, therefore Asbury 
could not be in order above a presbyter when lie was 
under a presbyter's control. Presbyter Wesley is ad- 
mitted to have authority over Superintendent Asbury, 
therefore Asbury cannot have any order above that 
of presbyter. Any other supposition would be in- 
consistent and contrary to the fitness of things. So 
when Presbyter Wesley gives directions to Superin- 
tendent Coke it can only be on the supposition that 
Coke has no higher order than that of presbyter. 
For one of a lower order to command one in a higher 

* Memoirs of Bishop Whatco at, by William Phoebus, M.D. New 
York, 1828. 



324 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



order is unheard of, and would not be tolerated 
by the merest ecclesiastical novice. Certainly one 
trained like Mr. Wesley would never permit one in a 
lower order to direct him, and he would never think 
of commanding one who was higher in order than 
himself. Yet this presbyter commands a Methodist 
superintendent ; therefore the superintendent cannot 
have any minsterial order higher than that of elder. 
The superintendents had conceded Mr. Wesley's right 
under the agreement, and the Conference had formal- 
ly conceded his authority ; and now the Conference is 
afraid that Wesley will exercise his power in recalling 
Asbury, and that Asbury will obey. This can only 
be explained on the ground that at this time Wesley, 
the superintendents, and the Conference did not con- 
sider that the superintendent had any higher order 
than that possessed by Wesley himself, and conse- 
quently that in order they were only elders, and that 
the distinction between them and other elders was 
of an official character — that the superintendents 
were in office but not in order above the other elders, 
and that Presbyter Wesley was in official position 
above them all. 

Superintendent Coke maintained that the Confer- 
ence was bound to appoint Whatcoat a superinten- 
dent. Lee says : 

Dr. Coke contended that we were obliged to receive Mr. 
Whatcoat, because we had said in the Minutes taken at the 
Christmas Conference, when we were first formed into a 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbuey. 325 



Church in 1784, 'During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley we 
acknowledge ourselves his sons in the Gospel, ready in matters 
belonging to Church government to obey his commands." * 

But the Conference had reached a point where it 
was determined to decide for itself. In 1784, not- 
withstanding Mr. Wesley's appointment of superin- 
tendents, the Conference preferred by its own vote to 
say who should superintend. So, at this juncture, the 
ministers came to a similar decision and refused to 
elect the minister named by Mr. Wesley. Lee says : 

Many of the members of that Conference (1787) argued that 
they were not at the Conference when that engagement was en- 
tered into, and they did not consider themselves bound by it. 
Other preachers, who had said they were "ready to obey his 
commands," said they did not feel ready now to obey his com- 
mand. 

The preachers at last agreed to depart from that engagement, 
which some of the elder brethren had formerly entered into, 
and in the next printed Minutes that engagement was left out. 

They had made the engagement of their own accord and 
among themselves, and they believed they had a right to de- 
part therefrom when they pleased, seeing it was not a contract 
made with Mr. Wesley, or any other person, but an agreement 
among themselves. It was further argued that Mr. Wesley, 
while in England, could not tell what man was qualified to 
govern us as well as we could who were present and were to 
be governed. We believed also that if Mr. Wesley was here 
himself he would be of the same opinion with us. ... 

This step of receding from the above engagement was after- 
ward considered by some disaffected persons as improper. If 
there was any thing improper in the business it was in enter- 
ing into the engagement, and not in departing from it. t 



* Lee's History of the MtOtudists, p. 126. 



f Ibid., p. 127. 



328 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



The Rev. William Phoebus states that Dr. Coke 
had 

some directions from Mr. "Wesley to give the Conference ; in 
which directions Richard Whatcoat was nominated for a third 
superintendent. One ventured to say that Mr. Wesley took too 
much on him — yea, too much to be borne with by Americans; 
that he might increase his impositions if his power were not 
checked. It might grow enormous, even to popery.* 

We have nothing to say as to the soundness of all 
this reasoning. We merely record the facts. 

The outcome of the whole matter was that not- 
withstanding the agreement made at the Christmas 
Conference to obey Mr. Wesley, the Conference of 
1787 refused to have Whatcoat as a superintendent, 
and, recognizing the awkwardness of their position, 
they went further and annulled the agreement. 

It is stated that when Asbury was informed of 
Mr. Wesley's desire he acquiesced, and that the Con- 
ference which met at Charleston did likewise. But 
when the proposition was brought before the Virginia 
Conference it was vigorously opposed by the Rev. 
James O'Kelly, one of the ablest leaders of the Con- 
ference. As all the preachers had not met this year 
in one Conference, it was agreed to submit the matter 
for final decision to the Conference which would be 
held in Baltimore, " on condition that the Virginia 
Conference might send a deputy to explain their 
sentiments." f 

* Memoirs of Bishop Whatcoat, New York, 1828. 
f Snethen's Reply to O'Kelly. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 327 

When the Baltimore Conference met, the super- 
intendents called the elders together and formed a 
council to consider the matter, and " they, notwith- 
standing Coke's advocacy, decided adversely."* 

O'Kelly urged, as reasons against the selection of 
Whatcoat, that " he did not consider the person ade- 
quate to the task on account of his age, and also that 
he was a stranger in the wilderness of America." f 

When the case was submitted to the Conference, 
it decided against the selection of Whatcoat, and ex- 
punged the resolution to obey Mr. Wesley. This is 
what is spoken of as the removal of Mr. Wesley's 
name from the Minutes. J 

It is not our province to discuss in all its bearings 
the wisdom or propriety of thus cutting the Gordian 
knot. It was the short way out of the difficulty, and 
good resulted from it. The spirit of the American 
Revolution still possessed these American ministers. 
It was another declaration of independence. It was 
a revolution, but to Wesley it seemed a rebellion. It 
was an emphatic declaration by the Conference that 
it meant to be above him who claimed to be superior 
to its superintendents. It was a proclamation that, 
the General Conference would not permit any execu- 

* Atkinson's Centennial History of American Methodism, p. 58. 
f Ibid., p. 58. 

X Mr. Wesley's name, however, had not appeared in the Annual 
Minutes for 1786. The agreement in question had not been printed 
in the Anuual Minutes. It appeared in the "Minutes," etc., "Com- 
posing a Form of Discipline," which was a different publication. 



32S 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



live power or official authority to be above itself ; 
and in making their decision they actually deposed 
"Wesley, whom they had previously made their chief 
superintendent, and this assertion implies that they 
recognized no higher order than that which was 
possessed by members on the floor "of the Confer- 
ence. 

This action was a heavy blow to Mr. Wesley, who 
complained of it, and especially that Asbury, as he 
supposed, had not exerted himself to avert it. In a 
letter written on the 31st of October, 1789, Mr. Wes- 
ley said : 

I was a little surprised when I received some letters from 
Mr. Asbury affirming that no person in Europe knew how to 
direct those in America. Soon after he flatly refused to receive 
Mr. Whatcoat in the character I sent him. He told George 
Shadford, " Mr. Wesley and I are like Caesar and Pompey ; he 
will bear no equal, and I will bear no superior." And, accord- 
ingly, he quietly sat by until his friends voted my name out 
of the American Minutes. This completed the matter, and 
showed that he had no connection with me.* 

In a letter to Whatcoat, Wesley said : 

It was not well judged of Brother Asbury to suffer, much 
less indirectly encourage, the foolish step in the last Con- 
ference. Every preacher present ought, both in duty and in 
prudence, to have said, 11 Brother Asbury, Mr, Wesley is your 
father, consequently ours. 1 ' Candor will affirm this in the face 

* Letter published by the Rev. Mr. Hamraett in Charleston. Dr. 
Atkinson, in his Centennial History of American Methodism, p. 60, 
savs : il The understanding: appears to be that Wesley in attributing 
this language to Asbury was mistaken." 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 329 

of the world. It is highly probable that disallowing me will, 
as soon as my head is laid, occasion a total breach between the 
English and American Methodists. They will naturally say, 
"If they can do without us we can do without them." But 
they would find a greater difference than they imagine. Next 
would follow a separation among themselves. 

Mr. Asbury did not admit these allegations. He 
thus wrote : 

And why was I thus charged ? Because I did not establish 
Mr. Wesley's absolute authority over the American Connection. 
For myself, this I had submitted to, but the Americans were 
too jealous to bind themselves to yield in all things relative to 
Church government. Mr. AVesley was a man they had never 
seen — was three thousand miles off — how might submission in 
such a case be expected ? Brother Coke and myself gave of- 
fense to the Connection by enforcing Mr. Wesley's will in some 
matters. 

As to the rescinding of the resolution to obey Mr. 
Wesley, Asbury said : "At the first General Confer- 
ence 1 was mute and modest when it passed, and I 
was mute when it was expunged." 

The Rev. James O'Kelly publicly charged that Mr. 
Asbury was one of the principal parties in this 
transaction. In his Apology he said : " After these 
things Francis took with him a few chosen men, and 
in a clandestine manner expelled John, whose sur- 
name was Wesley, from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church." 

It would seem that this statement needed some 
qualification, for it was the Conference that took 



330 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



action. The Rev. Nicholas Snethen, who replied to 
Mr. O'Kelly, states that Mr. Asbury gave him 

a particular detail of every circumstance relative to himself 
that had relation to the leaving of Mr. Wesley's name out of 
the American Minutes, from which it appears that Mr. Asbury 
was not deserving of the smallest blame in the whole business. 

To this he adds : 

Mr. Asbury neither made the motion nor advocated it; the 
whole case was constitutionally carried through the Confer- 
ence, and voted by a fair majority. Mr. Asbury, indeed, fore- 
saw the consequence when the question was in contemplation, 
and informed the patrons of it that he expected all the blame 
would be imputed to him if it should be carried. Had he been 
under the influence of the spirit of prophecy his fears could 
not have been better grounded.* 

It is clear, however, that Asbury never was satisfied 
with the resolution of submission, for he has left on 
record the following declaration : "I never approved 
of that binding minute. I did not think it practical 
expediency to obey Mr. Wesley at three thousand 
miles' distance, in all matters relative to Church gov- 
ernment." f 

Having stricken out the resolution of obedience, 
the Conference saw that it would be well to send 
some solace. So Lee tells us : " We then wrote a 
long and loving letter to Mr. Wesley, and requested 

* Snethen's Reply to Mr. CKelly's Apology for Protesting Against 
the Methodist Episcopal Church Government. Philadelphia, 1800. 
Atkinson's Centennial History of Methodism, pp. 60, 61. 

f Letter in Atkinson's Centennial Hist., p. 56. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 331 

him to come over to America and visit his spiritual 
children." * This was asking a great deal in those 
days of a man almost eighty-four years of age, and 
would be even in this day, with its rapid and more 
comfortable ocean steamers. The letter does not 
seem to have satisfied Wesley ; but though the inci- 
dent was painful to Wesley there can be no doubt as 
to the ultimate benefit of this independence to Amer- 
ican Methodism. 

Two years later an effort was made to console 
Wesley by inserting his name in the Animal Minutes 
before the names of Coke and Asbury (Minutes of 
1789), but the resolution of obedience never was 
restored. 

The Rev. Thomas Morrell says : 

Mr. Wesley complained that we were ungrateful. We felt 
ourselves grieved that the good old man was hurt, and deter- 
mined to give him every satisfaction in our power consistent 
with our rights, and in 1789 the Conference consented that his 
name should be restored in the Minutes, in testimony of our 
union with and respect for him, but inserted in such a manner 
as to preclude him from exercising an unconstitutional power 
over us.f 

This incident shows that Wesley did not consider 
that a superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, even after he had been set apart with relig- 
ious service, was any higher, or as high as himself, 
which would not have been the case had the su peril i- 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 127. 
f Morrell's pamphlet, Truth Discovered. 



332 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

tendent received an order higher than that of a pres- 
byter. 

It shows not only Presbyter Wesley's estimate of 
his authority as the head of Methodism, but also his 
opinion that a superintendent occupying the " episco- 
pal office " could be removed from his position at his 
pleasure, and that without any cause, such as crime or 
improper conduct, being alleged ; a view which cannot 
be harmonized with any notion of the superintend- 
ency as a higher order, but which would be compati- 
ble with his idea of the episcopate or superintendency 
as an office. 

Asbury, in his letter to the Rev. Joseph Benson, 
which has been quoted, and which referred to this 
very matter, speaks of " the right of electing every 
Church officer, and more especially our superintend- 
ent," which shows that Asbury looked upon the 
superintendency as an office, and the superintendent 
as an officer ; and his remark that Wesley's claim 
" meant to put him out of office " implies the same 
tiling. In brief, the whole incident reveals the fact 
that the superintendent was regarded as having a 
higher office but not a higher order. 

Another troublesome question in this Conference 
of 1787 was one raised in regard to Dr. Coke. Coke 
had been out of the country, and yet had undertaken 
to direct certain matters in the United States. The 
preachers thought that in so doing he had gone be- 
yond his functions as a superintendent, and at this 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 333 

Conference they boldly and vigorously expressed 
their dissatisfaction. Lee says : 

At the Baltimore Conference the preachers complained of 
Dr. Coke, because he had taken upon himself a right which 
they never gave him, of altering the time and place of holding 
our Conferences, after it had been settled and fixed on at the 
previous Conference. Another complaint was brought against 
him for writing improper letters to some of cur preachers, such 
as were calculated to stir up strife and contention among them.* 

This shows that the Conference held that it was 
superior to the superintendents, and that at will it 
could take them to task. But this would be incon- 
sistent if the superintendency were a special and 
higher clerical order rather than an office. That 
presbyters and preachers who had not attained that 
order should call a superintendent to account for offi- 
cial action shows that they looked upon his position 
as an office and not an order. 

That they took a superintendent to task " because 
he had taken upon himself a right which they never 
gave him," shows not only that a superintendent had 
no right to do any thing that was not specified in the 
Discipline, but also that his position possessed no 
power excepting that which the General Conference 
expressly and explicitly gave; and this position is 
consistent only with the idea of an office and not a 
ministerial order. An order carries with itself certain 
prerogatives, but an office has no power excepting 
as the body creating the office delegates power to it. 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 124. 



331 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



The action of this Conference shows that its mem- 
bers understood that the superintendency had no 
power excepting what the Conference pleased to give 
it, and, therefore, they must have viewed it as an 
office, and not as an order. The Conference was the 
fountain of power, the superintendency had no inher- 
ent prerogatives, and whatever functions the office 
possessed were merely delegated powers. Lee says : 

At that time the doctor saw that the preachers were pretty 
generally united against him; he acknowledged his faults, 
begged pardon, and promised not to meddle with our affairs 
again, when he was out of the United States. He then gave 
in writing a certificate to the same purpose.* 

The certificate which Superintendent Coke gave 
the Conference is as follows : 

The Certificate of Dr. Coke to the Conference. 

I do solemnly engage, by this instrument, that I never will, 
by virtue of my office, as superintendent of the Methodist 
Church, during my absence from the United States of America, 
exercise any government whatever in the said Methodist Church 
during my absence from the United States. And I do also 
engage that I will exercise no privilege in the said Church 
when present in the United States except that of ordaining 
according to the regulations and law already existing, or here- 
after to be made, in the said Church, and that of presiding when 
present in Conference, and, lastly, that of traveling at large. 

Given under my hand the second day of May, in the year 1787. 

Thomas Coke. 

Witnesses: John Tunnil, 
John Hagerty, 
Nelson Reed. 



* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 125. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. c35 

He saw that the Conference was jealous of its 
rights, and that it would not tolerate an episcopate 
administered from a foreign country, and hence he 
promised. to refrain from exercising "any govern- 
ment whatever " in the Church during his absence 
from the United States. 

The preachers then agreed to forgive what was past, pro- 
vided this condition should be expressed in the Minutes, 
which was done thus : 

Ques. Who are the superintendents of our Church for the 
United States ? Ans. Thomas Coke (when present in the 
States) and Francis Asbury.* 

And so it appears in the Annual Minutes for 1787. 

Thus this Conference asserted the right to limit a 
superintendent's jurisdiction and to limit the exercise 
of his functions even after he had been elected, and 
though for years he had occupied the "episcopal 
office." 

This Conference declared Dr. Coke a superintend- 
ent only when in the United States — that when he 
went out of the United States he lost all power of 
superintendency — and, if he stayed out, he ceased to 
be a superintendent. This is practically a declaration 
that once a superintendent does not make a man a 
superintendent every-where, and that once a superin- 
tendent does not mean always a superintendent. 

Superintendent Coke ceased being a superintend- 
ent when he went beyond the bounds of the United 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, pp. 125, 126. 



336 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

States, and then lie liad no power of superintendency 
over the very body that had recognized and elected 
him. Now, if the snperintendency had been an order, 
Dr. Coke must have carried it with him every- where, 
for this is a peculiarity of the prerogative of order as 
contrasted with that of office. Thus no one ever heard 
of a man being ordained a presbyter and then the body 
that conferred or recognized the order saying he was 
a presbyter only when he was in one particular place. 
A clerical order is of that peculiar character that it 
cannot be so limited to a locality, but goes with him 
upon whom it has been conferred wherever he goes. 
Thus a presbyter is a presbyter always and every- 
where unless he be entirely deposed from the ministry. 
That they so limited the superintendency in the case 
of Coke shows that the Conference looked upon it as 
an office and not as an order. Again, one educated 
as Coke, knowing the rights of clerical orders, would 
not have yielded in such a way had the superintend- 
ency been an order. That he acquiesced in the ar- 
rangement is a confession that he understood the 
superintendency was not an order. That he consid- 
ered it an office appears further from the fact that 
in his written agreement Coke uses the expression 
" by virtue of my office, as superintendent." 

In this case the Conference declared itself superior 
to any of its offices and to all its officers, and so as- 
serted its right and power to say where a superin- 
tendent should and where he should not exercise 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 337 

jurisdiction — when he should and when he should 
not be superintendent. The power to limit in one 
place implies the power to limit in some other, and 
this kind of control implies that the superintendency 
is merely an office and not a ministerial order ; for 
no Church gives a man a clerical order with the idea 
that he has that order only while he is in a particular 
locality. 

We have already intimated that those who edited 
the Minutes probably inserted expressions by way of 
comment for which it would hardly be just to hold 
the Conference responsible. We have also seen that 
Asbury as early as November 27, 1785, was engaged in 
re-arranging the Discipline, and in his Journal, under 
date of March 25, 1786, he says : " Read our Form 
of Discipline in manuscript, which Brother Dickins 
has been preparing for the press." So it would seem 
that Asbury and John Dickins had been working to- 
gether on this revision. The re-arranged Discipline, 
however, was not published until 1787, probably be- 
cause Asbury desired to secure the concurrence of 
Coke, who returned to America that year. Lee says : 

In the course of this year Mr. Asbury reprinted the General 
Minutes, but in a different form from what they were before. 
The title of this pamphlet was as follows : "A. Form of Dis- 
cipline for the Ministers, Preachers, and Members of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in America; considered and approved 
at a Conference held at Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, 
on Monday, the 27th day of December, 1784. In which the 
Reverend Thomas Coke, LL.D., and the Reverend Francis 
22 



338 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Asbury presided. Arranged under proper heads, and method- 
ized in a more acceptable and easy manner." * 

There is no evidence that the Conference gave the 
editor or editors authority to re-arrange the Dis- 
cipline, much less to make changes in the matter. 
Certainly the re-arrangement of the Discipline of 
1787 was not adopted by the Conference in 1784, 
and it will be seen that one very important change 
was made without the previous authority of the Con- 
ference. Lee tells us that 

In this Discipline there were thirty-one sections, and sixty- 
three questions, with answers to them all. The third question 
in the second section, and the answer, read thus: 

Quest. Is there any other business to be done in Conference? 

Ans. The electing and ordaining of bishops, elders, and 
deacons. 

Lee, commenting upon this, says : 

This was the first time that our superintendents ever gave 
themselves the title of bishops in the Minutes. They changed 
the title themselves, without the consent of the Conference ; 
and at the next Conference they asked the preachers if the 
word bishop might stand in the Minutes, seeing that it was a 
Scripture name, and the meaning of the word bishop was the 
same with that of superintendent. 

Some of the preachers opposed the alteration, and wished to 
retain the former title; but a majority of the preachers agreed 
to let the word bishop remain, and in the Annual Minutes for 
the next year ihe first question is, "Who are the bishops of 
our Church for the United States ? " t 

It is evident that this revised Discipline was not 
published until after the Conference of 1787 had ad- 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, pp. 127, 128. f Ibid., p. 123. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 339 



journed, and after the Annual Minutes for 1787 had 
been issued, for these Minutes contain the title super- 
intendent, and not the title bishop, and, as the last 
Conference of this year convened on the 24th of July, 
the Discipline did not appear until after that ; and 
the consent of the Conference to the change of title 
could not have been given until 1788.* 

It would appear, therefore, that nothing had been 
said to any of the Conferences about the proposed 
change until after the revised Discipline had been 
printed and circulated. In the meantime nearly a 
whole year passed before the Conference could meet, 
and the people had become somewhat accustomed to 
the change, and, though there was opposition to the 
new title, finally it was permitted to remain. 

There can be no question that the superintendency 
was an episcopacy, and that superintendent and 
bishop might be considered as equivalent, for both 
had the idea of oversight;! but the editors commit- 
ted an error which was akin to usurpation when 
they changed a title which had been adopted by the 

* Both Bangs and Emory are mistaken as to some of their dates 
at tl lis point. 

f Superintendent, an overseer; from French superintendant, "a 
superintendent;" from Latin superintendent, stem of pres. part, of 
sitperintendere, to superintend : from Latin super, over, above ; and 
intendere, to attend to, apply the mind ; Latin intendere, to stretch 
out, bend, direct, apply the mind. Intendant, from Old French, one 
of " the four overseers or controllers of the exchequer, at first 
brought in by King Francis the First." (See Skeat's Etymological 
Did.) So bishop, from ipiscopos; an overseer or overlooker. 



340 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

Church, without first obtaining the consent of the 
Conference. Superintendent did mean bishop, and 
the superintendency was an episcopacy, but they had 
no right to make the change without authority. In 
judging of this action, however, it should be remem- 
bered that the superintendents had not yet gotten 
away from the influence of the example of Wesley, 
who held that his decision was supreme. Their use 
of a synonym was illegal, but by the action of the 
Conference of 1788 the name bishop became the legal 
title, and, as Lee says, " From this time the name of 
bishop has been in common use among us, both in 
conversation and in writing." * 

Notwithstanding the change of name it was well 
understood there was no change in the thing, but that 
" the meaning of the word bishop was the same 
with that of superintendent." So the qualifying 
note which had been inserted in the Minutes helped 
to prevent mistakes on this point. It said : 

As the translators of our version of the Bible have used the 
English word bishop instead of superintendent, it has been 
thought by us that it would appear more scriptural to adopt 
their term bishop. 

The equivalent title, superintendent, still stands in 
some places in the Discipline, and since the legaliza- 
tion of the two titles the bishops have frequently re- 
ferred to themselves as the general superintendents ; 
and down to the present day the bishops have not 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 129. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 341 

thought themselves disparaged by being called gen- 
eral superintendents, thus acknowledging that both 
titles mean the same thing. 
Dr. Atkinson remarks that 

It will be observed that the title bishop was not assumed by 
the superintendents until after the declaration of submission 
to Wesley was expunged in 1787 by the Conference at Balti- 
more." * 

But it will be remembered that the editor of the 
Minutes of 1785 used the phrase u superintendent or 
bishop," and Dr. Coke, in the printed copy of his dis- 
course delivered at the consecration of Asbury, used 
the words " our bishops, or superintendents (as we 
rather call them)." f 

Mr. Wesley was greatly displeased when he learned 
that the American superintendents had taken the 
title of bishop, and expressed his dissatisfaction in the 
most emphatic manner. Probably because he sup- 
posed that Asbury had been the prime mover in the 

* Atkinson's Centennial History of American Methodism, p. 92. 

f In this sermon Coke answers the question, " "What right have 
you to exercise the episcopal office ? " and says : " To me the most 
manifest and clear. God has been pleased, by Mr. Wesley, to raise 
up in America and Europe a numerous society well known by the 
name of Methodists. The whole body have invariably esteemed this 
man as their chief pastor, under Christ, and we are fully persuaded 
he has a right to ordain. Besides, we have every qualification for 
an episcopal church which that of Alexandria possessed for two hun- 
dred years, our bishops, or superintendents (as we rather call them), 
having been elected by the suffrages of the whole body of our min- 
isters through the continent, assembled in General Conference " (Ty- 
erman's Life of Wesley, vol. iii, p. 437 ; Ziorfs Herald, Boston, 1884.) 



342 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



matter, or because he considered him responsible on 
account of his official position, Wesley wrote Asbury 
a very sharp letter expressing his disapproval of the 
new title.* But though it was keen, it was the fa- 
therly chiding of the man of eighty- five to the son of 
forty-three years of age. 

It will be noticed, however, that Wesley's objection 
was not to the office but to the name, and he preferred 

* The letter was written in London, September 20. 1788, and was 
published by the Rev. Henry Moore, who was with Wesley when 
he wrote it. In the letter he says: ''There is, indeed, a wide dif- 
ference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans, 
and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You are the 
elder brother of the American Methodists ; I am, under G-od, the 
father of the whole family. Therefore I naturally care for you all 
in a mariner no other person can do. Therefore I in a measure pro- 
vide for you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you he 
could not provide were it not forme— were it not that I not only per- 
mit him to collect, but support him in so doing. 

"But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the 
doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little, you study to be 
great; I creep, you strut along ; I found a school, you a college. Nay, 
and call it after your own names. 0 beware ! Do not seek to be 
something! Let me be nothing, aud Christ be all in all. 

"One instance of this, of your greatness, h;\s given me great con- 
cern. How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called a 
bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought. Men may call me a, 
knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content, but they 
shall never, by my consent, call me a bishop ! For my sake, for God's 
sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this. Let the Presbyterians 
do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better. 

"Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart; 
and let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely I 
am your affectionate friend and brother, John Wesley." 

— Wesley's Works, English Edition, vol. xiii, p. 70. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 343 

the name superintendent, probably, because he 
thought it would more readily avoid the danger of 
the prelatical notions attached to the word bishop. 

The Rev. Eichard Watson, referring to Wesley's 
objection to the change, says : 

The only objection he could have to the name was that 
from long association it was likely to convey a meaning be- 
yond his own intention. But this was a matter of mere pru- 
dential feeling confined to himself ; so that neither are Dr. 
Coke and Mr. Asbury to be blamed for using that appellation 
(bishop) in Mr. Wesley's sense, which was the same as presby- 
ter as far as order was concerned, nor the American societies 
(as they have sometimes inconsiderately been) for calling them- 
selves, in the same view, "The American Methodist Episcopal 
Church," since their episcopacy is founded upon the principle 
of bishops and presbyters being of the same degree — a more 
extended office only being assigned to the former, as in the 
primitive Church.* 

While Wesley would not allow others to address 
him as bishop, nevertheless he said he was a bishop, 
and claimed that he was " a scriptural entoiconog, as 
much as any man in England, or in Europe." His ob- 
jection, therefore, was not to the thing but to the name. 

Though the name was changed, the office remained 
the same. It was a true episcopate and, consequently, 
the incumbents of the office were bishops, and the 
Conference had power, regardless of Mr. Wesley, to 
use the word which was the equivalent of superin- 
tendent. The authority was not with Mr. Wesley, 
but with the Conference. 

* Watson's Life of Wesley, American edition, p. 24*7. 



34J: The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



In this new form of Discipline, issued in 1787, 
there was another change of some importance. The 
old question 3 and its answer were stricken out, and 
an introduction to the Discipline was inserted in their 
place. The former referred to the reason for the 
formation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the 
latter refers to the same thing, but gives other and 
more elaborate reasons. 

The introduction is as follows : 

We are thoroughly convinced that the Church of England, 
to which we have been united, is deficient in several of the 
most important parts of Christian discipline, and that (a few 
ministers and members excepted) it has lost the life and power 
of religion. We are not ignorant of the spirit and design it 
has ever discovered in Europe, of rising to pre-eminence and 
worldly dignities by virtue of a national establishment, and 
by the most servile devotion to the will of temporal govern- 
ors ; and we fear the same spirit will lead the same Church 
in these United States (though altered in its name) to similar 
designs and attempts, if the number and strength of its mem- 
bers will ever afford a probability of success, and particularly 
to obtain a national establishment, which we cordially abhor 
as the great bane of truth and holiness, and consequently 
the greatest impediment in the world to the progress of vital 
Christianity. 

Fdr these reasons we have thought it our duty to form our- 
selvefe into an independent Church. And as the most excellent 
mode of Church government, according to our maturest judg- 
ment, is that of a moderate episcopacy, and as we are per- 
suaded that the uninterrupted succession of bishops from 
the apostles can be proved neither from Scripture nor antiq- 
uity, we therefore have constituted ourselves into an Episco- 
pal Church, under the direction of bishops, elders, deacons, 
and preachers, according to the forms of ordination annexed to 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 34 5 

our Prayer Book, and the regulations laid down in this Form 
of Discipline.* 

There appears to be no evidence that 'this was 
adopted by the Conference, but, like the change of 
name of the chief officers of the Church, was appar- 
ently the work of the editors. It is valuable, however, 
in showing, first, that they rejected the doctrine of 
apostolic succession, and that the kind of episcopacy 
they had was a "moderate episcopacy," and, in the 
light of the contrasts they draw, the legitimate infer- 
ence must be that what they called their " moderate 
episcopacy " rejected all higher order notions. 

In 1789 this introduction was stricken out, and 
another, in the form of question and answer, was 
inserted. This again was in its details probably edi- 
torial work. Perhaps because it was merely an intro- 
duction rather than a material part of the Discipline 
it was not deemed necessary to have Conference 
action on the language. At least there does not 
appear to be any evidence that the Conference voted 
upon the exact wording. 

The object of this introduction was to declare the 
origin of the episcopate of American Methodism. It 
is as follows : 

Quest. 1. What is the proper origin of the Episcopal author- 
ity in our Church ? 

2. Am. In the year 1784 the Rev. John "Wesley, who, under 
God, had been the father of the great revival of religion now 



* Emory on the Discipline, p. 93 ; Sherman on Discipline, p. 100. 



310 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



extending over the earth by the means of the Methodists, de- 
termined to ordain ministers for America, and for this purpose 
sent over three regularly ordained clergy : but, preferring the 
episcopal mode of Church government to any other, he sol- 
emnly set apart, by the imposition of his hands and prayer, one 
of them, namely, Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil Law, late of 
Jesus College, in the University of Oxford, for the episcopal 
office, and, having delivered to him letters of episcopal orders, 
commissioned and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury, 
then general assistant of the Methodist Society in America, for 
the same episcopal office; he, the said Francis Asbury, being 
first ordained deacon and elder. In consequence of which the 
said Francis Asbury was solemnly set apart for the said epis- 
copal office by prayer, and the imposition of the hands of the 
said Thomas Coke, other regularly ordained ministers assisting 
in the sacred ceremony, at which time the General Conference, 
held at Baltimore, did unanimously receive the said Thomas 
Coke and Francis Asbury as their bishops, being fully satisfied 
of the validity of their episcopal ordination. * 

The answer states that they trace the origin of the 
episcopal authority to the Rev. John Wesley, "the 
father" of Methodism, who had sent to America 
" three regularly ordained clergy," so that, even in a 
churchly sense, Methodist ordinations would not be ir- 
regular, but would have a " proper origin." It further 
states that Mr. Wesley had u solemnly set apart " one 
of them, namely, Dr. Coke, " for the episcopal office." 

It will be noticed here and throughout this para- 
graph that the position or work is not called an 
order, but " the episcopal office," which phrase occurs 
no less than three times, apparently for the purpose of 
showing that they regarded the bishopric as an office. 
* Emory on Discipline, p. 93 ; Sherman on Discipline, p. 101. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 317 

It is to be observed, further, that the source of 
their episcopacy, to which they point, is presbyterial. 
No one of any higher order than that of a presbyter 
takes part. Wesley is a presbyter, and so is each one 
who assists him in setting apart Dr. Coke to " the 
episcopal office," and the American Methodists declare 
they are " fully satisfied with the validity " of this 
procedure by presbyters. No one ordained to any 
higher order than that of a presbyter took part, and, 
consequently, according to higher order ideas, no 
higher order was conferred. 

Dr. Coke could not have been admitted to any 
higher order, though he was set apart for the work 
of an office, for Wesley, who set him apart, affirmed 
that there was no higher order than that of presby- 
ter. So Superintendent Coke remained a presbyter, 
and, as this paragraph states, Wesley " commissioned 
and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury" "for 
the same episcopal office." 

The point they have in view is to trace the episco- 
pate to Mr. Wesley, but, while this is correct, it is also 
true that the Conference formally adopted the episco- 
pate, and unanimously elected the superintendents. 

It will be noticed, also, that in this paragraph a 
distinction is made between an ordination and the 
service inducting one into the bishopric. Of Asbury 
it is said that he was " ordained deacon and elder." It 
is not said, however, that he was " ordained " superin- 
tendent or bishop, but that he was " set apart for the 



3±3 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



said episcopal office," which reveals an incidental rec- 
ognition of a difference between ordaining one a pres- 
byter and setting apart a presbyter for the " episcopal 
office." 

The phrase " letters of episcopal orders " must be 
taken in a qualified sense. It certainly cannot be un- 
derstood as meaning that Wesley gave any certificate 
of an episcopacy having a higher order than that pos- 
sessed by a presbyter, for he affirmed that there was 
no such distinct and higher order. It has also been 
clearly shown that the Methodist Episcopal Church 
could not have supposed that Coke had received any 
order above that of presbyter, for they had "Wesley's 
declaration that there was no higher order. ~No doubt- 
ful phraseology can neutralize these positive facts. 

Again, the phrase cannot be construed according to 
higher order notions, for that would make the writer 
of the paragraph guilty of falsification in asserting 
that which was contrary to the facts ; for the fact is 
that Wesley never did give any letter certifying to a 
higher order than that of a presbyter, or in which he 
called the episcopate an order at all. The form in 
the testimonial letter is merely this : " I have this 
day set apart as a superintendent," etc. Thus the 
letter itself shows that it is not in any higher order 
sense " letters of episcopal orders," but simply a testi- 
monial letter given by Wesley in which he certifies 
that Coke was " set apart " as a superintendent. 

So the careless or doubtful use of the word " ordi- 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 349 

nation " at the close of the introduction is to be con- 
strued in the same way. No order was given in the 
elevation to the episcopate, and therefore in the strict 
sense no " episcopal ordination," as meaning the con- 
ferring of an order above that of presbyter, took 
place. Wesley could not mean it when he held there 
was no higher order, and the American Conference 
could not mean it when it accepted Wesley's view. 

The whole point in the mind of the writer of the 
paragraph was to show the " origin of the episcopal 
authority" The question before him was not 
whether the episcopate was a higher order, but 
whence it was derived. Having stated the source of 
the authority as he understood it, he did not appear 
to notice side issues that might arise. 

That the service used in setting apart the bishops 
did not carry with it a clerical order will more clearly 
appear as we advance in the investigation. 

This very year, 1789, Wesley's name was restored 
to the Minutes, and the intention in this restoration, 
and in the reference to him in the introductory para- 
graph just considered, seems to have been to honor 
the founder of Methodism, and perhaps to atone in 
a measure for the acts which had displeased him. 

Bishop Coke, in his Journal, says : 

On the 9th of March we began our Conference in Georgia. 
Here we agreed (as we have ever since, in each of the Confer- 
ences) that Mr. Wesley's name should be inserted at the head 
of our small Annual Minutes, and also in the Form of Disci- 



350 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



pliue ; in the small Minutes as the fountain of our episcopal 
office, and in the Form of Discipline as the father of the whole 
work, under the divine guidance. To this all the Conferences 
have cheerfully and unanimously agreed. 

It does not follow, however, that the Conferences 
passed upon the exact phraseology, but rather that they 
agreed to the restoration of the name, and that the ed- 
itors subsequently did the phrasing. But it will be 
seen from the extract from Bishop Coke's J ournal that 
he looked upon the bishopric merely as an office, and 
so he speaks of " our episcopal office." Lee remarks : 

As some persons had complained of our receding from a 
former engagement made by some of our preachers, that 
"during the life of Mr. Wesley, in matters belonging to 
Church government they would obey his commands," and as 
others had thought that we did not pay as much respect to 
Mr. Wesley as we ought, the bishops introduced a question 
in the Annual Minutes which was as follows: 

Ques. Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal office 
in the Methodist Church in Europe and America? 

Ans. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by 
regular order and succession. 

The next question was asked differently from what it had 
ever been in any of the former Minutes, which stand thus: 

Ques. Who have been elected by the unanimous suffrages of 
the General Conference, to superintend the Methodist connec- 
tion in America? 

Ans. Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury.* 

The Minutes, however, do not contain the words, 
" by regular order and succession," f and the Minutes 
for 1790 substitute the words, " Methodist Episcopal 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 142. f Minutes for 1789. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbuby. 351 

Church in America," for " Methodist Connection in 
America."* 

Here they call the episcopate an office, and as the 
very first in episcopal authority they name John Wes- 
ley. Now, Wesley was in order a presbyter and noth- 
ing more, and in the testimonial he gave Coke he calls 
himself " a presbyter of the Church of England." 

These early Methodists could not have understood 
the episcopate to be an order higher than the elder- 
ship, or they would not have placed or recognized a 
presbyter in that position who though in it remained 
a presbyter. Yet here they recognize Presbyter Wes- 
ley as in the " episcopal office," and place his name 
before the names of Bishop Coke and Bishop Asbttry. 

Further, it is evident that they laid no stress upon 
the service used in setting apart the bishops, and that 
they did not consider that it carried with it any higher 
order, for they recognized Wesley, who had never 
been set apart for the episcopate by any "sacred cere- 
mony," and who had never received any ordination 
above that of the eldership, as not only the equal but 
the superior of Coke and Asbury, who had been 
specially set apart with religious service. The serv- 
ice, therefore, was not considered as having any vir- 
tue, or as giving any higher order, but must have 
been looked upon as a non-essential but appropriate 
ceremony which left the presbyter to whom it was 
applied still a presbyter, and, as to orders, nothing 

* Minutes for 1790. 



352 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



more. With them a bishop was a presbyter in author- 
ity over presbyters, but in order on an equality, and, 
if the presbyter exercised such power, he was a true 
episcopos, whether he had or had not been subject to 
a special setting apart, and whether he had or had 
not been formally elected to that position, for Wesley 
had neither been formally elected nor formally set 
apart; and, so, their understanding must have been 
that their bishopric was not an order, but an office of 
oversight occupied by a presbyter. 

This single fact, that, in the very year the afore- 
mentioned paragraph was introduced, Mr. Wesley 
was recognized as the chief episcqpos of Methodism, 
relieves any obscure expression it may contain, and 
dissipates any doubt such an expression might cre- 
ate ; so that " letters of episcopal orders " cannot be 
understood as implying any higher order than that of 
presbyter, for no higher order was recognized. 

At the Conference of 1792 occurred a secession led 
by the Rev. James CVKelly, and, a few months be- 
fore, another independent movement had been started 
by the Rev. William Hammett. Both of these leaders 
were men of decided ability, and for a time met with 
considerable success. 

Though O'Kelly and his followers did not with- 
draw on account of the nature of the episcopacy, nev- 
ertheless, once they bad withdrawn, they began to 
speak of it as a "spurious episcopacy." * 

* Lee's History of Hie Methodists, p. 205. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 353 

Lee says of the seceders : 

The name of bishop they abhorred. They acknowledged that 
the word bishop and the word elder in the Scriptures meant the 
same thing; yet they showed great indignation against the 
word bishop, and were well pleased with the word elder. In 
this case they showed their weakness, or their wickedness, in 
condemning a word which in substance they approved of.* 

This incidental allusion by Lee shows that at that 
day the Methodists understood the words bishop and 
elder to mean the same order. 

One who defended the Church against this antago- 
nism was the Rev. John Dickins, the first American 
preacher to whom Coke imparted the plan for the 
new organization. He was a member of the Christ- 
mas Conference, and consequently knew the original 
intention, as well as the understanding, at the time he 
w T rote. 

Emory, in his Defense of Out Fathers, quotes from 
a pamphlet written by Dickins in 1792, and says : 

The late Rev. John Dickins, in his remarks on the proceed- 
ings of Mr. Hammett, says, in relation to the superiority of our 
bishops, as not derived from their "separate ordination," but 
from the suffrages of the body of ministers: "Pray, when was 
it otherwise?" and, "How can the Conference have power to 
remove Mr. Asbury and ordain another to fill his place, if they 
see it necessary, on any other ground ? " Mr. Hammett had 
said: "Let your superintendents know, therefore, that their 
superiority is derived from your suffrages, and not by virtue of 
a separate ordination. Gain and establish this point, and you 
sap the foundation of all arbitrary power in your Church for- 

* Lee's History of the Metiwdists, p. 204. 

23 



354 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



ever." Mr. Dickins replies : "Now, who ever said the supe- 
riority of the bishops was by virtue of a separate ordination ? 
If this gave them their superiority, how came they to be remov- 
able by the Conference ? If, then, what you there plead for will 
sap the foundation of all arbitrary power, it has been sapped in 
our Connection from the first establishment of our constitu- 
tion " (p. 31). Again he remarks (p. 32): " We all know Mr. 
Asbury derived his official power from the Conference, and 
therefore his office is at their disposal." 

"Mr. Asbury," he says in another place, ''was thus chosen 
by the Conference, both before and after he was ordained a 
bishop; and he is still considered as the person of their choice, 
by being responsible to the Conference, who have power to 
remove him, and fill his place with another, if they see it 
necessary. And as he is liable every year to be removed, he 
may be considered as their annual choice " (p. 15). * 

This father of the Church calls the episcopate an 
office. He states that the bishops have no superior- 
ity "by virtue of a separate ordination," and it fol- 
lows, therefore, that if the so-called "ordination" 
gave no superiority it gave no higher order. He 
declares that the bishop " derived his official power 
from the Conference," and that the " separate ordina- 
tion" had nothing to do with his superiority, and 
that there is not " any other ground " on which the 
Conference has "power to remove" a bishop, and 
"fill his place, if they see it necessary," with an- 
other. Finally, he affirms that this view, that there 
is no virtue in the " separate ordination," and that 
the bishop derives his superiority solely "from the 
suffrages of the body of ministers," has been held 

* Emory's Defense of Our Fathers, pp. 109, 110. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbcey. 355 



"from the first establishment of our constitution," 
and he boldly asks, u Who ever said the superiority 
of the bishops was by virtue of a separate ordina- 
tion?" 

With Dickins, and those for whom he spoke, the 
bishopric was an office, and therefore the election was 
every thing, while the service of setting apart, what- 
ever it might be called, was a fitting formality that 
added nothing to the man or the position, and hence, 
though appropriate, it gave no order. Bishop Em- 
ory, commenting on this quotation from Dickins, 
says : 

The high standing of John Dickins is too well known to need 
any statement of it here. He was also the particular and 
most intimate friend of Bishop Asbury. And the pamphlet 
containing the above sentiments was published by the unani- 
mous request of the Conference held at Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 
1792; and may be therefore considered as expressing the views 
both of that Conference and of Bishop Asbury in relation to the 
true and original character of Methodist Episcopacy." * 

The Discipline issued in 1792 had a significant 
change in the heading of the section on "Bishops and 
their Duty." In 1787 it read : " On the Constituting 
of Bishops and their Duty." In 1792 this was 
changed to " The Election and Consecration of Bish- 
ops and their Duty." f The use of the word conse- 
cration was evidently intended to make a distinction 
between the service used in setting apart bishops and 
the services used at the ordination of deacons and 

* Emory's Defense, p. 110. f Sherman on Discipline, p. 164. 



350 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

elders, the word consecration conveying the idea of 
setting apart for an office, and not the conferring of 
an order. 

The Discipline of 1T96 is distinguished from all others by- 
containing notes on the respective sections prepared by the 
bishops.* 

These consisted partly of Scripture proofs of the doctrine 
and rules of the Church, and partly of expositions of the Disci- 
pline. . . . The bishops themselves disclaimed having any 
authority " to make laws or regulations," much less that their 
notes be regarded in that light, now that the Discipline has 
been considerably modified. But they are still interesting and 
important, as containing the views of the first bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church respecting its discipline at that 
time, and also as having been prepared at the request of the 
General Conference of 1796, and having received the implied 
sanction of the General Conference of 1800, which directed 
that they should be printed in such a manner that they could 
be conveniently bound up with the Form of Discipline, t 

In these notes on the Discipline, Bishops Coke and 
Asbury appear to have taken particular pains to in- 
dicate that the service setting apart a bishop was not 
an ordination in the sense that it conferred an order. 
Hence they use the word consecration in contradis- 
tinction to ordination. Thus they say that Mr. Wes- 

* Emory on the Discipline, 1851, pp. 84, 85. 

f Emory on Discipline, 1843, p. 281. The action of the General 
Conference of 1800 was: "Resolved, That the Form of Discipline 
shall be printed by itself, and the notes likewise printed distinctly 
out, with such references that they may be bound with the Form, 
and that the preachers shall have liberty to order as many as they 
please, with the notes or without them " (General Conference Journal, 
1800, pp. 43, 44). 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 357 



ley " first consecrated one for the office of a bishop." 
Again, they say Mr. Wesley " consecrated two bishops, 
Thomas Coke and Alex. Mather, one before the pres- 
ent episcopal plan took place in America, and the other 
afterward, besides ordaining elders and deacons." 

Then this section has the heading, " The Election 
and Consecration of Bishops," while other sections 
have "The Election and Ordination of Traveling 
EUers," and " The Election and Ordination of Trav- 
eling Deacons," just as they appeared in the Disci- 
pline itself. Thus both the bishops and the Disci- 
pline set forth by contrast the distinction in the 
nature of the services, that, while the services for dea- 
cons and elders imply " ordering," the service for the 
bishop does not imply the conferring of an order, but 
the formal setting apart for that which they term an 
office. Therefore the word ordain is used for elders 
and deacons, who were recognized as receiving orders, 
and consecrate for one who entered the bishopric, 
which, by way of distinction, was regarded as an office. 

Bishops Coke and Asbury also reveal the same re- 
lation when they refer to the supreme power which 
the General Conference possessed over the incum- 
bents of the "episcopal office." They state that 

They are perfectly subject to the General Conference, . . . 
they are perfectly dependent; that their power, their useful- 
ness, themselves, are entirely at the mercy of the General Con- 
ference, and, on the charge of immorality, at the mercy of 
two thirds of the little Conference of nine. 



358 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Again they say : 

The authority given to, or rather declared to exist in, the 
General Conference, that in case there shall be no bishop re- 
maining in the Church they shall elect a bishop and authorize 
the elders to consecrate him, will not admit of an objection, 
except on the supposition that the fable of an uninterrupted 
apostolic succession be allowed to be true. St. Jerome, who 
was as strong an advocate for episcopacy as perhaps any in the 
primitive Church, informs us, that in the church of Alexandria 
(which was, in ancient times, one of the most respectable of 
the churches) the college of presbyters not only elected a 
bishop on the decease of the former, but consecrated him by 
the imposition of their own hands solely, from the time of St. 
Mark, their first bishop, to the time of Dionysius, which 
was a space of about two hundred years ; and the college of 
presbyters in ancient times answered to our General Confer- 
ence.* 

The bishops in their notes also group the episco- 
pate with " the presiding elder's office," and ask, u Is 
it not strange that any of the people should complain 
of this or of the episcopal office?" and go on to 
speak of them as " these offices," so that with them 
the bishopric was an office in the sense that the pre- 
siding eldership was an office, though superior. Now, 
no one pretends that the presiding eldership is an 
order, and according to Coke and Asbury's grouping 
neither is the bishopric. So, having a service of in- 
stallation for presiding elders would not make the 
office an order, and neither would any definite or 
indefinite extension of the term. The character- 

* Coke and Asbury's Notes on Discipline, chapter i, section 4. See 
Emory and Sherman on Discipline. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 359 

istic of both is official authority mainly of an ex- 
ecutive nature, and so they are fitly grouped together 
as offices. 

At the General Conference of 1796 it was proposed, 
on account of Asbury's ill health and Coke's frequent 
absences, to elect another bishop. This was agreed 
to, but "after the vote was taken a difficulty arose 
about the manner of choosing or electing " the bish- 
op, "and before the point was settled Dr. Coke 
begged that the business might be laid over until the 
afternoon, which was done." Lee then says : 

When we met in the afternoon the doctor offered himself 
to us, if we saw cause to take him ; and promised to serve us 
in the best manner he could, and to be entirely at the disposal 
of his American brethren, and to live and die among them.* 

The Rev. John Kobler, who was a member of the 
Conference, says : 

This unexpected offer, and to many an unwelcome one, 
opened the way to a large and spirited debate. A number 
present were warmly in favor of accepting the offer, and as 
many were against it. Mr. Lee was decidedly against and 
he warmly opposed it. . . . He could not endure the absolute 
spirit and overbearing disposition of Dr. Coke, as a high offi- 
cer in the Church. Mr. Lee was a candid man, and in no 
wise disposed to give flattering titles to any, and, as such, he 
opposed the offer with great zeal and eloquence from first to 
last. He was a man of great penetration, and could see 
through circumstances and read men well. He was the best 
speaker in the Conference. He first showed that there were 
several members in our Connection who were well qualified 



* Lee's History of the Methodists, pp. 247, 248. 



300 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



to fill the office, having been long and well proved; who were 
natives of the country, one of ourselves, and were well ac- 
quainted with the rules by which our civil and religious priv- 
ileges were regulated. But his most powerful argument, I 
well remember, was this: "That the doctor was a thorough- 
bred Englishman; and an entire stranger abroad in the 
country {out of the Church); that the deep-rooted prejudices 
against British oppression, which by our arduous Revolution- 
ary struggle we had so recently thrown off, still hung heav- 
ily, and was operating powerfully upon the public mind; and 
that to select a high officer to govern our Church from that 
distant and tyrannizing nation, whose spirit and practice 
were held in abhorrence by the American people, would, in 
his judgment, be a very impolitic step, and would tend to 
raise the suspicions and prejudices of the public against us 
as a Church. He further said he had frequently heard the 
same objections made against us as an American church for 
having a native of England (Bishop Asbury) at our head; and 
now to add another, who, in many respects, had not the ex- 
perience, prudence, nor skill in government that Bishop As- 
bury had, would operate very materially against the best 
interests of the Church." 

The debate lasted two days, and was incessant, and during 
the time the doctor was secluded from the Conference room. 
Mr. Lee and his party evidently had the better of the cause 
in debate, and were gaining confidence continually. . . . 
When Bishop Asbury saw how the matter was likely to go, he 
rose from the chair, and with much apparent feeling said: 
"If we reject him it will be his ruin, for the British Confer- 
ence will certainly know of it, and it will sink him vastly in 
their estimation." Here the debate ended. I well remember 
during the debate the doctor came into the Conference and 
made a speech. Among other things, he said "he never 
was cast upon such a sea of uncertainty before."* 

* Letter of John Kobler in Life and Times of Ben. Jesse Lee, by Dr. 
Leroy M. Lee, pp. 327, 328. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 361 
Lee says : 

The Conference at length agreed to the doctor's proposal, 
and concluded that if the doctor tarried with us we could do 
with two bishops. . . . The doctor then gave us the following 
instrument in writing: 

*' I offer myself to my American brethren entirely to their 
service, all I am and have, with my talents and labors in every 
respect ; without any mental reservation whatsoever, to labor 
among them, and to assist Bishop Asbury; not to station the 
preachers at any time when he is 'present, but to exercise all 
episcopal duties, when I hold a Conference in his absence, and 
oy his consent, and to visit the West Indies and France when 
there is an opening, and I can be spared. 

" Signed, Thomas Coke. 

"Conference Room, Baltimore, October 27, 1796."* 

It will be observed that Coke, who was the first 
superintendent or bishop, is thus reduced or reduces 
himself to the position of an assistant, and that the 
Conference claimed complete control over him. Such 
control of a bishop which the Conference claimed, 
and which both Asbury and Coke conceded, is rot at 
all in harmony with the idea that the bishopric is a 
higher order, but is with the idea that it is an execu- 
tive office. 

In the year 1800 Mr. Asbury " proposed to resign 
his office as superintendent " and " take his seat in 
the Conference on a level with the elders" but the 
Conference took formal action on " his intention of 
resigning his official station" and requested " a con- 

* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 248 ; Bangs's History of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, p. 56. 



362 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



tinuation of his services as one of the general super- 
intendents." Lee says : 

Some time previous to the meeting of the preachers in that 
Conference Mr. Asburyhad said that when they met he would 
resign his office as superintendent of the Methodist Connection, 
and would take his seat in the Conference on a level with the 
elders. He wrote to several of the preachers in different parts 
of the Connection, and informed them of his intention; and 
engaged other preachers to write to their brethren in the min- 
istry, and to inform them of his intention to resign. Withal, 
he wrote his resignation with an intention to deliver it into 
the Conference as soon as they met, and to have it read in their 
first meeting. He said he was so weak and feeble both in 
body and mind that he was not able to go through the fatigues 
of his office.* 

At the Conference Bishop Asbury " intimated 
that he did not know whether this General Confer- 
ence were satisfied with his former services." f 

When Conference met and proceeded to business they first 
took up Mr. Asbury's case thus : 

Quest. Whereas, Mr. Asbury has signified his intention of 
resigning his official station in our Churcli on account of his 
weakness of body, what is the sense of the Conference on this 
occasion ? 

Ans. 1. The General Conference consider themselves under 
many and great obligations to Mr. Asbury for the many and 
great services which he has rendered to this Connection. 

2. This Conference do earnestly entreat Mr. Asbury for a 
continuation of his services as one of the general superintend- 
ents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as far as his strength 
will permit.}: 



* Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 265 ; General Conference Jour- 
nal, 1800, p. 33. \ Ibid. $ Ibid. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 363 

This item of history reveals a number of impor- 
tant facts : 1. That the word bishop is not used, but 
the title general superintendent, showing that the 
latter was equivalent and equally honorable ; 2. That 
Lee, Asbury, and the Conference understood the 
episcopate or superintendency to be an "office" or 
an " official station ; " 3. That Asbury and the Con- 
ference considered that a bishop could resign ; and 
4. That Asbury considered that when a bishop or su- 
perintendent " resigned his office" he would then be 
" on a level with the elders," that is to say, he had 
no separate order from which to resign, and when di- 
vested of his office he was merely an elder; or, in 
other words, that when a bishop resigned " his official 
station " he resigned all that he had above that which 
the ordinary elders possessed. He was a bishop as to 
office, but as to order merely an elder. 

" The next question which arose was, whether Dr. 
Coke, who was present as one of the presidents of the 
Conference, might have liberty to return to Europe 
in conformity to an earnest request of the British 
Conference to that effect. This request was founded 
on the acknowledged right which the American Con- 
ference had to the exclusive services of Dr. Coke, in 
consequence of the solemn pledge he had given them 
in the year 1796, and which had been gratefully ac- 
cepted by the American Conference. And so sacred 
was this obligation considered by Dr. Coke, and rec- 
ognized by the British Conference, that he would not 



364 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



consent to a withdrawal of his services from his 
American brethren without their approbation and 
consent. When, however, this engagement was first 
made known to the brethren in Great Britain, they 
expressed their deep regrets that the doctor had thus 
deprived them of his valuable services, particularly in 
the missionary department of their work. Accord- 
ingly, when he visited the Continent in 1797, he 
brought with him an earnest and affectionate address 
from the British Conference to their American breth- 
ren, in which they urged the doctor's return to Europe 
with all practicable speed." * 

"No General Conference was in session, and hence 
there was no authority to speak for the whole body, 
but the matter was submitted to the Virginia Con- 
ference, and the reply which Asbury sent to the En- 
glish Conference throws light upon the relative 
powers of the General Conference. Bishop Asbury 
thus replied: 

Respected Fathers and Brethren : You, in your broth- 
erly kindness, were pleased to address a letter to us, your 
brethren and friends in America, expressing your difficulties 
and desires concerning our beloved brother Dr. Coke, that he 
might return to Europe to heal the breach which designing 
men have been making among you, or prevent, its threatened 
overthrow". We have but one grand responsive body, which is 
our General Conference, and it was in this body the doctor 
entered his obligations to serve his brethren in America. No 

* Bangs's: History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, pp. 
88, 89. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbuhy. 365 

yearly Conference, no official character, dare assume to answer 
for that grand federal body. 

By the advice of the yearly Conference now sitting in Vir- 
ginia, and the respect I bear to you, I write to inform you 
that in our own persons and order we consent to his return and 
partial continuance with you, and earnestly pray that you may 
have peace, union, and happiness together.* 

This shows that the relative powers of bishop, 
yearly Conference, and General Conference were be- 
coming more clearly denned. 

The General Conference of 1800, after deliberating 
on the request, adopted the following resolution : 

That in compliance with the address of the British Confer- 
ence to let Dr. Coke return to Europe, this General Conference 
consent to his return upon condition that he come back to 
America as soon as his business will allow, but certainly by 
the next General Conference. 

The Journal of the General Conference says : " A 
large majority arose in favor of it." f 

It was decided at this General Conference to elect 
another bishop, and the question arose as to " whether 
he shall be equal to Bishop Asbury or subordinate 
to him," \ and the Conference decided : 

That the bishops shall have full and equal jurisdiction in all 
and every respect whatsoever. That each and every bishop 
shall attend each and every Conference, and then and there 
mutually preside and station the preachers ; provided, that, in 
case they should unavoidably be prevented from all attending, 
the bishop or bishops then present shall be competent to dis- 

* Bangs's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, pp. 89, 90. 
f General Conference Journal, 1800. pp. 32-34. \ Ibid., p. 35. 



366 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



charge the duties of the office as fully and effectually, in every 
respect, as if they were all present.* 

On Monday morning, May 12, the Conference pro- 
ceeded to the election of a bishop. The first ballot 
was a tie, and was supposed to be defective. Upon 
the second ballot there were fifty-nine votes for the 
Rev. Richard Whatcoat, and fifty-five for the Rev. 
Jesse Lee, and Whatcoat was declared duly elected. f 

Accordingly, on the 18th of May he was consecrated as a 
joint superintendent with Bishop Asbury, by prayer and im- 
position of hands of Bishops Coke and Asbury, assisted by 
some of the elders.J 

The General Conference of 1804, at which Bishop 
Coke was present, showed marked improvement in 
its modes of procedure, and the methodical spirit of 
Bishop Coke was very manifest. 

On the motion of the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper it was 
resolved that 

Dr. Coke shall have leave from this General Conference to 
return to Europe, agreeably to the request of the European 
Conferences, provided, he shall hold himself subject to the call 
of three of our Annual Conferences to return to us when he 
shall be requested ; but at furthest that he shall return, if he 
lives, to the next General Conference. § 

All this action in reference to Bishop Coke was an 
assertion of power, not as dealing with an order, but 
as controlling an officer. 

* General Conference Journal, 1800, p. 36. f Ibid., pp. 36. Si. 
% Bangs's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, p. 93. 
§ General Conference Journal, 1804, p. 64. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 367 

The General Conference of 1808 decided that fut- 
ure General Conferences should not be composed of 
preachers of four years' standing, but that the Gen- 
eral Conference should be a delegated body. 

Up to this time the General Conference had su- 
preme power, but it was now necessary to put some 
limitations on the power of the General Conference, 
which would be composed of delegates representing 
the body of the ministry. It was therefore resolved 
that " The General Conference shall have full powers 
to make rules and regulations for our Church under 
the following limitations and restrictions," and one 
of these restrictions was : " They shall not change or 
alter any part or rule of our government, so as to do 
away episcopacy or destroy the plan of our itinerant 
general superintendency ; " and then they further 
provided that that which the General Conference was 
restricted from doing itself could be done " upon the 
joint recommendation of all the Annual Conferences, 
then a majority of* two thirds of the General Confer- 
ence succeeding." * 

This shows that the General Conferences, prior 
to the adoption of the order for a delegated General 
Conference, had power to destroy the episcopacy or 

* General Conference Journal, 1808, p. 89. 

In 1832 the proviso was amended, and the form as it now stands 
in the Discipline was adopted. The amended form permits the change 
to be made on the vote of three fourths of the members of the An- 
nual Conferences, and allows the matter to originate in the General 
Conference. 



368 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



the plan of the itinerant general superintendence 7 , and 
that after that regulation the General and Annual 
Conferences, acting concurrently, still had that power, 
, which shows that they were dealing with an official 
position.* 

Bishop Coke was not present at the General Con- 
ference of 1808, but he wrote to that body, giving 
reasons for his absence, and making certain proposi- 
tions as a condition for his return to episcopal duty 
in America. Referring to his visit to America four 
years before, he said : 

I did not take a decisive farewell of my brethren in Europe, 
as I was not sure whether you would, in your circumstances, as 
they respected Bishop Asbury, receive me as an efficient super- 
intendent or bishop among you in any degree or manner.^ 

He now wants them to define what powers he 
would have should he return to America, which was 

* "The constitution gives to the General Conference full powers 
to make rules and regulations under defined limitations — power to 
make all rules and regulations pertinent to Church government under 
specified restrictions, and under no other restrictions. There is not 
here a delegation of enumerated powers accompanied by a general 
reservation, as in the case of the federal government, but a delega- 
tion of general and sweeping powers under enumerated and well- 
defined restrictions. The whole power to rule and regulate the 
Church is given to the General Conference by the plain terms of the 
grant, and it is to be held as restricted only in those particulars in 
which it was designed not to delegate the power. In what particulars 
it was designed not to delegate the power must be determined by the 
terms of the constitution. No limitations can be implied other than 
those assigned in the instrument itself." (Bishop W. L. Harris on The 
Constitutional Powers of the General Conference, 1860, pp. 22, 23.) 

f The italics are his own. 



Episcopate, 178J-, until Death of Asbury. 369 

an admission of the complete power of the Confer- 
ence over his position, not as it would have over an 
order, but as it would over an office. 

He wants to have " a full right " to give his judg- 
ment "in every thing, in the General and Annual 
Conferences," etc., and adds : 

If this cannot at present be granted by the authority of the 
General Conference, you may insert me in your Minutes as for- 
merly ; or you may insert the resident bishop or bishops, and 
add a N. B., Dr. Coke (or Bishop Coke, as you please) resides 
in Europe till he be called to the States by the General Confer- 
ence or by the Annual Conferences ; or, if this be not agreeable, 
you must expel me (for dropping me out of your public Min- 
utes will be, to all intents and purposes, an expulsion).* 

" It was agreed that Dr. Coke's name be printed 
in the T$. B. in the annual Minutes of the present 
year." f 

The way it did appear is as follows : 

Quest. 6. Who are the superintendents and bishops ? 

Ans. Francis Asbury, William McKendree. 

J^P^ Dr. Coke, at the request of the British Conference, and 
by consent of our General Conference, resides in Europe; he 
is not to exercise the office of superintendent among us in the 
United States until he be recalled by the General Conference, 
or by all of the Annual Conferences respectively. \ 

Thus they dealt with one to whom the Methodist 
Episcopal Church is greatly indebted for many of its 
best features, and of whom Bishop Asbury said : 

* Bangs's History of Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, pp. 197-199. 
f General Conference Journal, 1808, p. 79. 
% Minutes for 1808. 
24 



370 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



u Doctor Coke — of blessed mind and soul— of the 
third branch of the Oxonian Methodists — a gentle- 
man, a scholar, and a bishop, to us— and as a minister 
of Christ, in zeal, in labors, and in services, the 
greatest man of the last century." * Such was the 
control the Conference had over the office and the 
officer. They did not act so because they did net 
honor the man, but because they deemed the action 
was required by the circumstances. 

An editorial in The Christian Advocate of 18i4, 
presumably by the celebrated Dr. Bond, says : 

It is manifest that the General Conference of 1808 had no 
doubt as to its right to suspend Dr. Coke, one of their bishops, 
during their pleasure ; for the resolution does not only forbid 
him to exercise the functions of a superintendent over the 
Methodist Episcopal Church while he continued to reside in 
Europe, but until recalled. He might have come to America 
at any time; but he could not reinstate himself in the episco- 
pate, without he should be again called to it, either by vote of 
the General Conference or by all the Annual Conferences. 
Xor did the Conference proceed by impeachment, or upon any 
specific charge of immorality or violation of Discipline. The 
action of the body was simply prudential. . . . The action of 
the Conference was, to all intents and purposes, a deposition 
of the bishop, though it was so expressed as to give him as 
little offense as possible. 

The same authority remarks that the Discipline, 

as acted upon by the General Conference, . . . established the 
right of the General Conference to depose or suspend a general 
superintendent for any cause which that body may believe ren- 

* Asbury's Journal, vol. iii, p. 380. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbury. 371 

ders that deposition or suspension necessary, without the proc- 
ess of trial or impeachment.* 

The action of the General Conference was consist- 
ent only with the supposition that the bishopric was 
not an order but an office, and shows that the 
Church at that day regarded and treated it sim- 
ply as an official position. So Bishop Coke viewed 
it, and, as Watson says, when he was in America, 
he was, " in the sense of office" a bishop, yet when 
he returned to England, where "he had no such 
office," "he used no such title and made no such 
pretension." f 

In another letter, addressed to the General Con- 
ference of 1808, Dr. Coke explains his letter to 
Bishop White of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
The letter to Bishop White had been interpreted not 
only as an application for union with the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, but also for " episcopal ordination " 
from that body for himself and Asbury. He ex- 
plains that what he had done was in view of difficul- 
ties which then existed, and especially because of the 
withdrawal of the Rev. James O'Kelly and thirty- 
six ministers. What he thought of was a union " not 
by a dereliction of ordination, sacraments, and the 
Methodist Discipline, but by a junction on proper 
terms." In regard to this he says : 

* Christian Advocate and Journal, August 14, 1844, T. E. Bond 
and G-. Coles, editors. 

f Watson's Life of John Wesley, American Edition, p. 248. 



372 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

Bishop "White, in two interviews I had with him in Phila- 
delphia, gave me reason to believe that this junction might be 
accomplished with ease. Dr. Magaw was perfectly sure of it. 
Indeed, (if Mr. Ogden of New Jersey, did not make a mistake 
in the informaiion he gave me), a canon passed the house of 
bishops of the old Episcopal Church in favor of it. Bishop 
Madison, according to the same information, took the canon to 
the lower house. "But it was there thrown out," said Mr. 
Ogden, to whom I explained the whole business, "because they 
did not understand the full meaning of it."* 

Meeting the question whether he " did not think 

that the episcopal ordination of Mr. Asbury was 

valid," Bishop Coke thus answers, using the word 

consecration rather than ordination : " I have no 

doubt but my consecration of Bishop Asbury was 

perfectly valid, and would have been so even if he 

had been reconsecrated." Then he says : 

I never did apply to the General Convention or any other 
convention for reconsecration. I never intended that either 
Bishop Asbury or myself should give up our episcopal office, if 
the junction were to take place; but I should have had no 
scruple then, nor should I now, if the junction were desirable, 
to have submitted to, or to submit to, a reimposition of hands 
in order to accomplish a great object ; but I do say again, 
I do not now believe such a junction desirable. 

Again he says : " I do not consider the imposition 
of hands, on the one hand, as essentially necessary 
for any office in the Church ; nor do I, on the other 
hand, think that the repetition of the imposition of 
hands for the same office, when important circum- 
stances require it, is at all improper." 

* Baugs's Hist, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, pp. 207, 208. 



Episcopate, 1784, until Death of Asbuey. 373 

He also says : "lam of our late venerable father 
Mr. Wesley's opinion, that the order of bishops and 
presbyters is one and the same" * 

This restates Wesley's opinion, and, coming from 
the very man who was said to have received " episco- 
pal ordination " and " letters of episcopal orders," 
shows that these phrases were used in a qualified 
sense and did not imply that any higher order had 
been imparted, for " the order of bishops and pres- 
byters is one and the same" That Bishop Coke 
made such a statement to the Conference without 
any dissent shows also that it reflected the sentiment 
of the Conference. 

Throughout all this period the identity of bishops 
and presbyters as to order has been tacitly and posi- 
tively affirmed. There may have been some confu- 
sion in the use of terms, and it is barely possible that 
a few may have misunderstood the nature of the 
episcopate, but the transactions of the General Con- 
ference, as well as the statements of representative 
men, demonstrate that the early Methodist Episcopal 
Church understood that a bishop bad no order above 
that of a presbyter or elder, and that the bishopric — 
"the episcopal office," as they called it — was not an 
order, but an office of an executive character, and that 
he who filled it was in office a superintendent or 
bishop, but in order merely a presbyter or elder. 

* Bangs's Hist, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, pp. 206-10. 



374 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



CHAPTER YIII. 

THE BISHOPRIC FROM THE DEATH OF ASBURY TO 1844. 

BISHOP ASBURY died on the last day of March, 
1816, and on the twenty-third of the following 
month the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, at the request of 
the Philadelphia Conference, delivered a funeral dis- 
course in memory of the deceased Bishop. The ser- 
mon, with an appendix, was published in 1819 as an 
18mo volume of 230 pages. 

Cooper w T as present at the first meeting of Coke 
and Asbtiry, and was familiar with the views of the 
Church in those early days, and consequently his 
words have authority. In his sermon he declares that 
the founders of the denomination endeavored " to 
follow the Scriptures and the primitive Church;"* 
and in the appendix he calls the episcopacy of Meth- 
odism a " presbyterial episcopacy, 1 ' and maintains that 
bishops and presbyters or elders are the "same order."f 
Thus the second period of the Church's history starts 
out with the very declaration which the Church at its 
beginning had received through Wesley's letter. 

In a short time agitations concerning questions of 
polity greatly increased. The controversy referred 

* Cooper on Asbury, p. 109. f Ibid., p. 215. 



Bishopric from Death of Asbury to 1844. 375 

mainly to lay representation, but it also involved the 
episcopacy of the denomination, and the discussion 
called out strong writers. In 1820, the year follow- 
ing the publication of Cooper on Asbury, the Kev. 
Nathan Bangs, D.D., published his work on Metho- 
odist Episcopacy. In this he used language which 
created the suspicion that he meant to imply that the 
bishops had a distinct order above that of the elders. 
That his phraseology did not represent the voice of 
the Church, and that he was applying the word order 
in a new and objectionable sense, is evident from the 
fact that his phrases were promptly objected to, and 
he was attacked so vigorously for even appearing to 
teach that which the Church had never taught that 
at last he found it necessary, in defending himself, to 
write and print a letter explaining his language. 

In this letter, which was published in 1827, in the 
appendix to Emory's Defense of Our Fathers, Dr. 
Bangs complained that he had been misunderstood, 
and explained that in his use of the word order, in that 
connection, he gave it a special definition. He says : 

I use the word order merely for convenience, to avoid cir- 
cumlocution, meaning thereby nothing more than that they 
were invested, by consent of the eldership, with a power to 
preside over the flock of Christ, and to discharge other duties 
not so convenient for the presbyters to discharge. 

This definition, of course, makes the bishopric sim- 
ply an office with delegated executive powers, and 
Bangs takes the force out of the word order in this 



370 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



connection when lie says that he used it in a qualified 
sense, and "merely for convenience, to avoid circum- 
locution," and that he means this, and "nothing 
more." Again, he states that he means that our 
bishops were like those ministers in the early Chris- 
tian Church who were "denominated evangelists" 
which certainly is not a very High Church notion. 
And again, in this letter, he says : 

If any choose to say that we acknowledge two orders only, 
and a superior minister possessing a delegated jurisdiction, 
chiefly of an executive character, he has my full consent. 

So Dr. Bangs gives his " full consent " to the dec- 
laration that " we acknowledge two orders only / " 
and also that a bishop is merely "a superior minister 
possessing a delegated jurisdiction, chiefly of an ex- 
ecutive character," and the logical inference from this 
is that he held that the bishop was an executive 
officer, and that the bishopric was an office, and not a 
clerical order above the eldership. We should not 
overlook the fact that in the above quotations from 
Dr. Bangs's letter, the italics, "orders, "two orders 
only" and " nothing more" are his own. 

That he considered bishops and presbyters to be 
the same order is manifest from other declarations 
which he makes. Thus he says : 

That those denominated bishops, elders, or presbyters in the 
apostolical writings were one and the same order of men we 
will now endeavor to demonstrate.* 

* Bangs's Vindication of Method ist Episcopacy, p. 19. 



\ 



Bishopric from Death of Asbury to 1844. 377 

Again, in his Original Church of Christ, pub- 
lished in 1836, and which has been a text-book in 
the course of ministerial study, he has " canceled " 
some views in the Vindication. In this new work 
lie says : 

The terms bishop, presbyter, and elder, signified, in the 
primitive Church, the same order of ministers. . . . There was, 
however, as it appears, this difference : the term bishop was a 
title of office, signifying overseer, and the word presbyter re- 
ferred to the order.* 

Therefore, the term bishop is not descriptive of an order 
superior to that of presbyter. t 

Again he says : 

It is preposterous to infer that because a minister in the 
Church is distinguished by different appellations lie is there- 
fore of another order. Here is an elder or presbyter who has 
colleagued with him several other presbyters, and who for 
convenience and an orderly conducting of business has an 
oversight of them, and is thence designated their overseer. At 
another time a society is called to transact some business pe- 
culiar to its organization, and he is called to preside, and is 
on that account called their chairman or president. Up springs 
a novice, and stretches his throat, and cries out, "You have 
created another order of ministers ! " Does he need any argu- 
ments to refute him ? % 

That he held the bishopric of our Church to be an 
office and not an order is seen also in the fact that in 
his History of the Methodist Episcopal Chiirch, pub- 
lished in 1840, Dr. Bangs speaks of the episcopacy as 

* Bangs's Original Church, p. 39. 
f Ibid., p. 46. \ Ibid , pp. 48, 49. 



373 - The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

an office ; * and, further, from the fact that during 
the great discussion in the General Conference of 
1844 he constantly spoke of " the office of bishop," 
and the "high office of a general superintendent," 
and refers to the bishop as " a general officer of the 
Church." f 

In 1827, seven years after the appearance of 
Bangs's Methodist Episcopacy, the Rev. John Em- 
ory, D.D., published A Defense of Our Fathers, and 
of the Original Organization of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church. At first sight there seems a little con- 
fusion in some of his phrases, but a careful reading 
and a just comparison of his statements show that 
the context fully qualifies his apparently unusual ex- 
pressions. His object is to maintain the validity of 
the episcopate of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and he insists that there is nothing improper in having 
a service for setting apart bishops "even on the prin- 
ciple of two orders," for, " in this respect," he says, 
"both Mr. Wesley's usage and ours exactly corre- 
spond with that of the primitive Church according to 
Lord King," who " maintains that bishops and presby- 
ters in the primitive Church were the same order." X 

But Emory shows just how little weight he put 
upon the service for setting apart bishops by his in- 
dorsement of a quotation from John Dickins's pam- 

* Bangs's Hist, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. iii. pp. 60, 78. 
f Debate in the General Conference of 1844. p. 98. 
% Emory's Defense of Our Fathers, p. 64. 



Bishopric feom Death of Asbuky to 1844. 379 



pblet of 1792, in which Dickins declared " the superior- 
ity of the bishops" was not ki by virtue of a separate 
ordination;"* and Emory himself refers to the su- 
periority of our bishops as derived not from their 
"separate ordination." f Emory, therefore, follow- 
ing Dickins and Wesley, puts no stress upon the 
service ; and, hence, as the separate service conferred 
no superiority, the bishop received through it no order 
distinct from and superior to the eldership. 

Dr. Emory is meeting the allegation that because 
Methodism has no higher order than the eldership it 
has not a true episcopal form of government. This 
inference he denies, and says : 

We have abundantly proved, according to ecclesiastical 
writers of the most distinguished celebrity, that an episcopal 
form of government is perfectly consistent with the admission 
that bishops and presbyters were primarily and inherently the 
same order. And w T e have especially proved that this was Mr. 
Wesley's view in particular. { 

Again he says : 

The idea that equals cannot from among themselves consti- 
tute an officer who, as an officer, shall be superior to any of 
those by whom he was constituted, is contradicted by all ex- 
perience and history, both civil and ecclesiastical, and equally 
so by common sense. § 

All this refers to the episcopacy of our Church, 
and Emory calls the bishop an office?', and those who 
elected him his equals. That this is his meaning is 



* Emory's Defense, p. 110. 
% Ibid.., p. 60. 



f Ibid., p. 109. 
§ Ibid., p. 64. 



380 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



seen a little further on, where, referring to Bishops 
Coke and Asbury, he says : 

These church officers, after they were thus constituted and 
commissioned, were superior, as our officers, in the actual exer- 
cise of certain executive powers among us, to any individual 
of those by whom they were constituted.* 

In 1830 Dr. Emory quotes Mr. McCaine as claim- 
ing that Mr. Wesley believed " that bishops and 
presbyters are essentially of one order." To this 
Emory replied : " And do we dispute this ? Have 
we not repeatedly averred the same thing with the 
utmost explicitness ? " f 

Again he declares : 

The Methodist Episcopal Church not only admits, but asserts 
and maintains, and always has done so, that bishops and pres- 
byters are inherently and essentially the same. Its episcopacy 
was originally and avowedly instituted, and still rests, on this 
very principle. ... In the strict ecclesiastical sense, they are 
inherently and essentially the same order.}: 

One year later, namely, in 1831, Dr. Emory edited 
and added notes to the " First American Official 
Edition " of Watson's Life of Wesley. In these 
notes, referring to Wesley's setting apart of Coke as 
superintendent, he declares that even after that serv- 
ice, " according to Mr. Wesley's own view, he could 
not be higher in order than a presbyter." § 

* Emory's Defense, p. 65. 

f Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, 1830, p. 81. 
\ Ibid., p. 85. 

§ Watson's Life of Wesley, Am. Ed., p. 253. 



Bishopric from Death of Asbury to 1844. 381 



The issue as to whether the bishopric was an order 
or an office was soon squarely made, and just as 
squarely met. In 1828, the year after Emory's De- 
fense appeared, Thomas E. Bond, M.D., wrote his 
Narrative and Defense of the Proceedings of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore City 
Station, and in 1852 this was re-issued as a part of 
Bond's Economy of Methodism. The author refers 
to the charge that Asbury had used language which 
implied that he thought he was "a bishop of the 
third order, and superior to presbyters." * 

To this Dr. Bond thus replies : 

As to the charge of our having at any time considered our 
bishops as a distinct ministerial order, contradistinguished 
from and superior to presbyters or elders, it has no foundation 
in fact. The very circumstance of our having acknowledged 
the right of elders to ordain is a sufficient refutation of the al- 
legation. We consider the episcopacy a superior office in the 
Church — not a distinct ministerial order; and this is the light 
in which it has been considered ever since its institution. t 

Dr. Bond's statement shows that the Church had 
recognized and made a distinction between " order " 
and "office" ever since the institution of the episco- 
pacy. It is, indeed, a point of no little value in tin's 
investigation that Dr. Bond's phraseology so clearly 
shows that in the early days the word order and the 
word office were used as meaning entirely different 
things. 

* Bond's Economy of Methodism, p. 117. 
f Ibid., p. 120. 



382 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

That Dr. Bond was competent to give testimony 
on this question cannot be doubted. He was the 
great controversial writer of the Church, and his 
election to the editorship of The Christian Advocate 
in 1840 was no doubt due to the masterly ability he 
had displayed in the disputes of those days. He 
stood at a point in the history of the Church where 
he could speak authoritatively for the Church in his 
time, and from the time of its organization. When 
he wrote the passage just quoted he was in the prime 
of life, and with sufficient maturity to comprehend 
the view of the Church. 

When Asbury died Dr. Bond was thirty-four years 
of age, and a practicing physician, so that even at 
that time he was old enough to have met all the 
''fathers "of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and, 
as he resided in Baltimore, he probably had met them, 
and from them learned their views and the views of 
the early Church. Besides this, his family connec- 
tions opened to him reliable sources of information. 
He was a near relative of the Rev. John Wesley 
Bond, who was Bishop Asbury's traveling companion, 
and who was with the bishop when he died. Had 
Dr. Bond no other means of gaining information on 
this subject, this relationship alone would, no doubt, 
have been sufficient to secure him accurate knowledge 
as to the opinions of Asbury and of the Church prior 
to that day. Probably there was no one at that time 
more competent to speak for the Church. 



Bishopric from Death of Asbury to 1844. 383 

Dr. Bond stood beside the fathers and knew the 
sons, and so was familiar with the ideas of both. Fur 
him, therefore, to say publicly to an antagonist that 
the Church from the beginning considered the bish- 
opric as an office, and not "a distinct ministerial 
order, contradistinguished from and superior to pres- 
byters or elders," is most conclusive teaching, and 
sufficient to settle the question as to the view of the 
Church up to 1828, and even up to 1852, when his 
Economy of Methodism was issued. 

In 1841 Bishop Hedding delivered a discourse be- 
fore the New York, Providence, New England, and 
Maine Conferences on " The Administration of Dis- 
cipline." At the request of these Conferences he 
prepared it for publication, and it appeared in book 
form in 1842. 

In this work he says : 

The power with which the bishops are invested was formerly 
much greater than it is now, it being thought best by the 
General Conference to transfer part of it, from time to time, 
either to the elders or to the laity.* 

The superintendents now have no power in the Church above 
that of elders, except what is connected with presiding in the 
Conferences, fixing the appointments of the preachers, and 
ordaining. They have no voice in any question to be decided 
by vote in any Conference; no vote even in making the rules 
by which they themselves are to be governed. They are the 
servants of the elders, to go out and execute their commands. f 

The General Conference may expel a bishop, not only for 
immoral, but " for improper conduct, if they see it necessary." 

* Hedding on Discipline, p. 8. \ Ibid., p. 10. 



384 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Improper conduct in our Discipline means a small offense be- 
low a crime; and though the preachers and private members 
may be expelled for that kind of offense when it is persisted 
in after repeated admonitions, yet no one but a bishop, not 
even a child or a slave, can be expelled for the first improper 
act of that character. And if a bishop be expelled he has no 
appeal.* 

He also quotes approvingly from Coke and Asbury's 
notes on the Discipline, as, for example, the follow- 
ing, referring to the "stationing power" which the 
General Conference has given the episcopacy : 

If ever it evidently betrays a spirit of tyranny or partiality, 
and this can be proved before the General Conference, the 
whole will be taken from it, and we pray God that in such case 
the power may be invested in other hands. t 

He also remarks : 

When it is considered that the very men, to wit, the travel- 
ing preachers, over whom the bishop exercises his power gave 
him that power; that they continue it in his hands; that they 
can reduce, limit, or transfer it into other hands whenever 
they see cause — there certainly can be no occasion for the ve- 
hement exclamations against the bishop's power which are fre- 
quently made by men of other churches and by a few mis- 
guided brethren of our own.\ 

In the next General Conference Bishop Hedding's 
book was quoted a number of times to support the 
idea that the episcopacy was an office and not an 
order, and there is certainly reason to believe that 
Bishop Hedding, who was present, indorsed that 
interpretation. 

* Hedding ou Discipline, p. 12. \ Ibid., p. 16, $ Ibid., p. 13. 



Bishopric from Death of Asbury to 1844. 385 

On the 2d of April, 1844, the Key. Charles El- 
liott, D.D., finished his Life of Bishop Robert R. 
Roberts. Dr. Elliott was one of the great and schol- 
arly men of his time. As professor and college 
president, editor of three of the Church papers, and 
delegate to nine General Conferences, he was compe- 
tent to speak with authority as to the views of his 
Church. 

In his Life of Bishop Roberts he refers to the 
episcopacy as an office.* He maintains that the 
service used in setting apart bishops is not absolutely 
essential, and that bishops have no higher order than 
presbyters, thus restating the views of Dickins, 
Emory, and others, and harmonizing with Conference 
action. He says : 

The mere imposition of hands is of little importance, and 
could be very well dispensed with did the General Conference 
see fit. Besides, a separate consecration in addition to elec- 
tion has the appearance of favoring the sentiment that Meth- 
odist bishops are considered a distinct order of clergy, whereas 
they are of the same order as presbyters, that is, they are them- 
selves presbyters to whom certain powers are committed. Still, 
there is scriptural precedent for the imposition of hands. Paul 
and Barnabas were separated to a particular work by imposi- 
tion of hands and prayer. Acts xiv. . . . Perhaps in order to 
avoid the very appearance of an order of clergy superior to 
presbyters, as well as to preserve the complete oneness of the 
entire ministry, imposition of hands in appointing bishops had 
better be dispensed with; a mere certificate of office would 
fully answer every purpose provided for in Scripture and de- 
signed to be accomplished by the appointment of Methodist 

* Life of Bishop Roberts, p. 169. 

25 



386 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



bishops. This is, however, a point not worth contending 
for.* 

He also says : 

Ordination in the Methodist Episcopal Church is presbyte- 
rial ; that is, it is derived from and is under the control of the 
body of presbyters.f 

Again Dr. Elliott says : 

Methodist episcopacy recognizes these principles, is founded 
on them, and its practices correspond with them. It rejects 
what is called the distinct order of bishops, and resolves all 
its power into the body of the pastors and people, from whom 
it derives its authority, and to whom it is responsible for its 
proper exercise ; and thus it well accords with the principles, 
the spirit, and the practice of the New Testament concerning 
Church government. J: 

Speaking of the powers of bishops, he says : 

The bishops are not members of the General Conference. 
They are not the delegates of any Annual Conference. They 
do not vote, neither do they debate. . . . They preside also in 
the Annual Conferences, and yet they are not members of any 
of them.§ 

Thus authority after authority, down to the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1844, maintain that the episcopate 
carried with it nothing but delegated official powers, 
and that the bishops were presbyters. 

* Life of Bishop Roberts, chap, viii, pp. 171, 172. 

f Ibid., p. 171. \ Ibid., p. 174. § Ibid., p. 175. 



The General Conference of 1841. 387 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1844. 

THE memorable General Conference of 1844 throws 
a strong light upon the nature of the episcopate 
and its relation to the highest representative body of 
the Church. 

On the second day of the session the address of the 
bishops was read by Bishop Soule.* As this paper 
was presented early in the session its expressions were 
not due to the discussion which took place later in the 
session, and, consequently, may be taken as the un- 
prejudiced statement of the bishops' opinion of the 
views of the Church. First, they say : 

The general itinerant superintendency, vitally connected, as 
it is believed to be, with the effective operation, if not with 
the very existence, of the whole itinerant system, cannot be too 
carefully examined, or too safely guarded. And we have no 
doubt but you will direct your inquiries into such channels as 
to ascertain whether there has been any departure from its 
essential principles or delinquency in the administration in 
carrying it into execution ; and, in case of the detection of 
error, to apply such correction as the matter may require. 
There are several points in this system which are of primary 
importance, and on that account should be clearly understood. 
The office of a bishop or superintendent, according to our 

* Dr. James Porter says the address was written by Bishop Soule, 
or, at least, that that was the understanding at the time. 



388 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



ecclesiastical system, is almost exclusively executive ; wisely 
limited in its powers, and guarded by such checks and responsi- 
bilities as can scarcely fail to secure the ministry and member- 
ship against any oppressive measures, even should these officers 
so far forget the sacred duties and obligations of their holy 
vocation as to aspire to be lords over God's heritage. So far 
from their being irresponsible in their office, they are amena- 
ble to the General Conference, not only for their moral conduct, 
and for the doctrines they teach, but also for the faithful ad- 
ministration of the government of the Church, according to the 
provisions of the Discipline, and for all decisions which they 
make on questions of ecclesiastical law. In all these cases this 
body has original jurisdiction, and may prosecute to final issue 
in expulsion, from which decision there is no appeal. 

Then they speak of " what is involved in the super- 
intendence as it is constituted in our Church," as 
follows : 

1. Confirming orders, by ordaining deacons and elders. We 
say confirming, because the orders are conferredby another body 
which is independent of the episcopal office both in its organ- 
ization and action. This confirmation of orders or ordination 
is not by virtue of a distinct and higher order. For, with our 
great founder, we are convinced that bishops and presbyters 
are the same order in the Christian ministry. And this has 
been the sentiment of theWeslevan Methodists from the begin- 
ning. But it is by virtue of an office constituted by the body 
of presbyters, for the better order of discipline, for the preser- 
vation of the unity of the Church, and for carrying on the 
work of God in the most effectual manner. The execution of 
this office is subject to two important restrictions which would 
be very irrelevant to prelacy or diocesan episcopacy, consti- 
tuted on the basis of a distinct and superior order. The latter 
involves independent action in conferring orders, by virtue of 
authority inherent in, and exclusively appertaining to, the 
episcopacy. But the former is a delegated authority to confirm 



The Genekal Conference of 1844. 389 



orders, the exercise of which is dependent upon another body. 
The bishop can ordain neither a deacon nor an elder without 
the election of the candidate by an Annual Conference, and, 
in case of such election, he has no discretional authority, but 
is under obligation to ordain the person elected, whatever may 
be his own judgment of his qualifications. These are the two 
restrictions previously alluded to.* 

This is certainly a wise and safe provision, and should never 
be changed or modified so as to authorize the bishops to ordain 
without the authority of the ministry. With these facts in 
view, it is presumed that it will be admitted by all well-in- 
formed and candid men that, so far as the constitution of the 
ministry is concerned, ours is a " moderate episcopacy."! 

In this address the bishops say the episcopacy is 
not u a distinct and superior order" or "a distinct 
and higher order" and so emphatic are they that 
they italicize the word order. What is more, so anx- 
ious are they to make the point plain, that they spe- 
cifically state "that bishops and presbyters are the 
same order," that this was the opinion of Wesley, the 
"great founder 1 ' of the Church, and that this was "the 
sentiment'' of Methodists "from the beginning." 

They go still further, and speak of " the episcopal 
office," and "the office of a bishop or superintend- 
ent ; " that this office " is almost exclusively execu- 
tive, with no "inherent" prerogatives, but with 
" delegated authority ; " and so determined are they 

* From 1784 to 1787 an ordination required the "consent" "of a 
superintendent." In the latter year the Conference took this veto 
power from the superintendent. (See Emory on Discipline, 1851, 
p. 120; Sherman on Discipline. 1874, p. 164.) 

f Appendix to General Conference Journal of 1844, pp. 154, 155. 



390 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



that it shall be understood as nothing more than " an 
office " that they italicize that word in contradistinction 
to the word order, and this address was signed by all 
the bishops, showing that it expressed their unani- 
mous opinion. 

The great question in the General Conference of 
ISM was the case of Bishop James O. Andrew, who 
had "become connected with slavery," not by pur- 
chase of slaves, but by inheritance and marriage. 

The Rev. A. Griffith and the Rev, J. Davis, in view 

of this, offered the following : 

Resolved, That the Rev. James O. Andrew be, and he is 
hereby, affectionately requested to resign his office as one of the 
bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church.* 

The Eev. J. B. Finley and the Rev. J. M. Trimble 
offered the following as a substitute : 

Whereas, The Discipline of our Church forbids the doing of 
any thing calculated to destroy our itinerant general superin- 
tendency, and whereas Bishop Andrew has become connected 
with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this act having 
drawn after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the 
General Conference, will greatly embarrass the exercise of his 
office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not, in some 
places, entirely prevent it ; therefore, Resolved, That it is the 
sense of this General Conference that he desist from the exer- 
cise of this office so long as this impediment remains. 

After a long debate this was adopted,f and the 
friends of Bishop Andrew declared that this re- 
moved or deposed him from the episcopal office.:): 

* General Conference Journal, 1844, p. 64. f Ibid., p. 83. 

\ Debates of General- Conference of 1844, p. 153. . - 



The General Conference of 1844. 391 



The Kev. Alfred Griffith, in speaking to his reso- 
lution, referred to the title bishop, and said : 

We use it only and exclusively to denote and designate the 
chief officer of the General Conference, the chief officer of the as- 
associated Annual Conferences of this union. A bishop among 
us is, therefore, only an officer of the General Conference created 
for specific purposes, and for no other than the purposes speci- 
fied. ... He is chosen as the chief among his equals. . . . Our 
bishops . . . regard not themselves as a distinct order sepa- 
rate and apart from presbyters or elders. . . . They are officers 
in the strict and proper sense of the term. . . . The General 
Conference of 1808, at the same time that they restricted 
the delegated General Conference and prohibited them from 
destroying this office, reserved in their own hands the power to 
do it away altogether when it should so please them. Conse- 
quently they never designed — they never intended — to consti- 
tute the bishop an officer for life, under all circumstances. . . . 
We are here concerned exclusively with an officer of the Gen- 
eral Conference. . . . Whether the General Conference, consti- 
tuted under such circumstances, has power to regulate her 
own officers — that is the question; and whether, when once 
she selects an officer, no change in his condition, no change in 
his situation, no embarrassment with which he may choose to 
involve himself, can be touched. No, sir; they have full au- 
thority to regulate their own officers, to provide for any exi- 
gency which may operate as a barrier in the way of the 
accomplishment of the objects and purposes for which the 
officers were chosen.* 

The ministerial office does not, and cannot necessarily, in- 
volve the official relation of a bishop. I mean, it is one thing 
to be a minister, it is another and totally different thing to be 
a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is true this 
high officer must of necessity be a minister, because he cannot 
perform the functions of his office unless he be a minister, in 

* Debates of General Conference of 1 844, p. 83. 



392 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



view of the pow er of ordaining others conferred upon him, and 
the authority to superintend the spiritual and the temporal 
business of a great itinerant ministerial connection. He must 
he a minister, but yet, sir, his ministry — the power conferred 
upon him by his original ordination — does not necessarily con- 
stitute him that high officer of the General Conference. He 
comes to that by the free suffrages of his brethren. He is 
chosen as the chief among his equals. . . . We therefore do 
not touch the ministerial character of Bishop Andrew. That 
is not now the question before us at all ; but the simple ques- 
tion is, as an officer of the General Conference, chosen for a 
special purpose, to whom special duties are assigned, can he 
now perform the duties of his appointment with acceptance to 
the people he was selected to serve ? 

Though the bishops are set apart in due form by the impo- 
sition of hands, it is not with the design of conferring upon 
them any additional ministerial power, but of conferring upon 
them the authority of office to preside in our Conferences, to 
travel through all the length and breadth of the work , and to 
supervise and attend to the general interests of our great 
body.* 

Dr. Nathan Bangs spoke of a bishop " as a general 
officer," and the bishopric as an " office," and said : 
" There are many things that would disqualify a man 
for holding the office of a bishop that do not amount 
to immorality ; " for example, if a bishop " marry a 
free colored woman," which " would not be an act of 
immorality," and yet would " in the sense of the 
whole community disqualify him for his office ; " or 
if, for example, Bishop Hedding should "declare that 
it was a sin to hold slaves under any circumstances. 
This would identify him with the ultra party, and," 
* Debates of General Conference of 1844, pp. 84, 85. 



The General Conference of 184i. 393 

says Bangs, " I would vote for his retiring, because 
it would disqualify him for his work as superintendent 
of the whole Church," and so, he said : 

It is on this principle that I say Bishop Andrew has disqual- 
ified himself by connecting himself with slavery, because he 
cannot acceptably exercise his duties as a general officer of the 
Church.* 

The Rev. Mr. Cass said : 

As much as I respect the office of bishop and the men who 
fill it, they are amenable to justice. . . . They are the very 
last men who should not be censured if in the wrong. Mark 
this, sir, whenever there is a privileged order in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church the glory will have departed. Let this not 
be — no, never. t 

The Rev. Mr. Comfort spoke of the " episcopal 

office," and said : 

The proposed action of this Conference [that Bishop An- 
drew " desist from the exercise of his office"] did not affect 
his orders, but simply his jurisdiction as an officer of the Gen- 
eral Conference. . . . His office only was touched, not his or- 
ders — a distinction which could not be denied without involv- 
ing the doctrine of prelatical episcopacy — a doctrine at the 
farthest remove from Methodism on this subject. 

The Rev. Jesse T. Peck, afterward bishop, said : 

Brethren talk of the infringement of their constitutional 
rights, but what do they mean by it ? That any man has a 
constitutional right to be a bishop ! . . . There are no consti- 
tutional rights invaded. As to whether a man will do for a 
bishop or not the General Conference is the sole judge, either 
as to his election or retention. . . . You might as well talk of a 



* Debates of Geo. Conf. of 1844, pp. 97, 98. \ Ibid., p. 108. 



394 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



constitutional right to be an editor, or a book agent, or any- 
other General Conference officer.* 

He also held that if a bishop " should resign his 
episcopal office " he would still be " an elder in the 
Church of God." f 

The Rev. J. A. Collins, of Baltimore, quoted from 
Hedding on the Discipline, and from Emory's De- 
fense, and said : 

According to them a bishop was but an officer of that Gen- 
eral Conference; a high officer, he admitted — one whose very 
presence ought to inspire respect, and of whom they ought 
never to speak lightly; but still, after all, simply an officer of 
the General Conference. % 

He also asserted that 

If there were no specific law the Conference had power to 
remove the officer it makes.§ 

In one of the debates the Rev. Mr. Winner, of New 
Jersey, remarked that " The General Conference is the 
supreme power of the Church, not the episcopacy." ]| 

Dr. Durbin spoke of the "episcopal office," and 
quoted Coke, Asbury, and Dickins to prove that a 
bishop, as an officer, was subject to the General Con- 
ference. He also opposed the idea "that the Gen- 
eral Conference has no power to remove a bishop or 
to suspend the exercise of his functions, unless by im 
peachment and trial in regular form for some offense 
regularly charged." \ 

* Debates of Gen. Conf. of 1844, p. 116. \ Ibid., p. 120. 

%Ibid.,p.U1. §Ibid., p. 147. || Ibid., p. 18. ^ Ibid., p. 174. 



The General Conference of 1844. 395 



The greatest speech in this great debate was deliv- 
ered by Dr. Hamline, who, before the session closed, 
was himself made a bishop. In his argument he re- 
ferred to the bishop as an " officer," and to his posi- 
tion as the " bishop's office," and said : " In clerical 
orders every man on this floor is his equal." 

Again he said : " That the bishop's is an office is, I 
suppose, conceded." So w T ell settled was this idea 
that Dr. Hamline, in the presence of that able Gen- 
eral Conference, dared to say, and take it for granted, 
that it was a " conceded " fact not requiring argu- 
ment, as it would not be disputed ; and certainly this 
was the prevailing view of the General Conference of 
1844. 

This remarkable speech was so strong and so clearly 
voiced the sentiments of the Conference that it should 
be given entire, but its length forbids more than a 
few extracts. He said : 

Strict amenability in Church officers, subordinate and supe- 
rior, is provided for in our Discipline. From the class-leader 
upward this amenability regards not only major but minor 
morals — not only the vices, but also the improprieties, of be- 
havior. The class-leader, by mere eccentricity, becomes unpop- 
ular in his class. The pastor at discretion removes him from 
his office. The exhorter or unordained local preacher proves 
unacceptable, and a quarterly conference refuses to renew 
his license. The itinerant pastor is not useful in charge, and 
the bishop or the presiding elder deposes him from his charge 
or from the pastoral office, and makes him an assistant. The 
presiding elder impairs his usefulness on a district, not by 
gross malfeasance but by a slight wmfeasance, or, oftener still, 



396 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



because " he is not popular," and the bishop removes him to a 
station or a circuit, and perhaps makes him an assistant. I 
speak not now of annual appointments, when the term of the 
itinerant expires by limitation, but of removals by the bishop 
or the presiding elder in the intervals of Conference, which al- 
ways imply a deposing from office as well as a stationing act. In 
all these instances the manner of removing from office is pecu- 
liar. First, it is summary, without accusation, trial, or formal 
sentence. It is a ministerial, rather than a judicial act. Sec- 
ond, it is for no crime, and generally for no misdemeanor, but 
for being 4 ' unacceptable. " Third, most of these removals from 
office are by a sole agent, namely, by a bishop or preacher, 
whose will is omnipotent in the premises. Fourth, the remov- 
ing officer is not legally obliged to assign any cause for depos- 
ing. If he do so it is through courtesy, and not as of right. 
Fifth, the deposed officer has no appeal. . . . 

Is he, who can at discretion, by himself or by his agents, 
remove from office so many, among whom are thousands of his 
co-ordinates or peers, subject in turn to no such summary con- 
trol ? We have seen that to lodge this power of removal in 
superior and impose submission to it on inferior officers is 
the fashion of Methodism. She loves the system. She carries 
it up through many grades of office until we reach the bishop. 
Does it suddenly stop there? If so, on what ground? I can 
conceive none. . . . But is the episcopacy in regard to this 
question supreme? Certainly not. The General Conference, 
adjunct in certain exigencies with the Annual Conferences, is 
the ultimate depository of power in our Church. ... I shall 
argue our authority to depose a bishop summarily for impro- 
prieties morally innocent, which embarrass the exercise of his 
functions, from the relations of the General Conference to the 
Church and to the episcopacy. ... Its legislative supremacy 
consists of " full powers to make rules" as the Discipline words 
it. . . . In legislation the bishop has not only peers, but more 
than peers. In clerical orders every man on this floor is his 
equal, but in legislative functions his superior. . . . This 



The General Conference of 1844. 397 



Conference has judicial supremacy. . . . Every member on 
the floor wears the ermine, which you (the bishops) may not 
assume. Each of us blends in himself the functions of both 
judge and juryman, to which you are an utter stranger. 
And in the meantime you are liable, as I suppose, to be 
stripped by us of those other high prerogatives of which, by 
our countenance, you now hold investiture. You see, then, 
that as a bishop you were both elevated and depressed. In 
regard to legislative and judicial prerogatives, when you went 
up you went down. Your station in the General Conference 
is a peculiar eminence. Your high seat is not at all terrific in 
concealed or outbeaming power. It is like a gallery of disa- 
bilities, where, as a spectator of tragedy, you can do little 
more than admire or reprobate the piece, and smile or frown 
upon the actors. But, sir, such as it is, you and we approve 
it, and you would be as unwilling as ourselves to see your pre- 
rogatives changed by increase or diminution. You are high 
up and low down; and all (but yourselves most of all) are con- 
tent that we— as we mean by grace to do — should keep you up 
and keep you down. . . . The General Conference is the fount- 
ain of all official executive authority. ... It has full pow- 
ers also u to make regulations " for the government of the 
Church. What is a regulation? To appoint a preacher to a 
field of labor is a regulation. To remove him to another field 
is a regulation. To elect and empower a bishop to do this for 
us is a regulation. To recall that bishop to his former station 
is a regulation. Now, "what a man does by another he does 
himself " is a maxim in law. The General Conference may 
make these regulations without a bishop and leave him a less 
onerous superintendence, or the Conference may make these 
regulations by a bishop and multiply the toils of his superin- 
tendence. . . . Now, sir, all that this Conference can confer 
it can withhold. And whatever it can confer and withhold it 
can resume at will, unless a constitutional restriction forbids 
it. It can resume then all the powers granted to a bishop by 
its own act, except such prerogatives as are essential to epis- 



398 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



copacy and superintendency. . . . Our Church, constitution 
recognizes the episcopacy as an abstraction, and leaves this 
body to work it into a concrete form in any hundred or more 
ways we may be able to invent. We may make one, five, or 
t venty bishops ; and, if we please, one for each Conference. 
We may refuse to elect another until all die or resign ; and then 
to maintain the episcopacy, which we are bound to do, we 
must elect one at least. As to his term, we may limit it at 
pleasure, or leave it undetermined. But in this case is it un- 
determinable? Certainly not. The power which elected may 
then displace. In all civil constitutions, as far as I know, not 
to fix an officer's term is to suspend it on the will of the ap- 
pointing power. Cabinet ministers and secretaries are exam- 
ples. No officer as such can claim incumbency for life unless 
such a term be authoritatively and expressly fixed upon. 

Referring to the rule giving the General Confer- 
ence power to expel for "improper conduct," he 
remarked : 

" Having power to expel," sets forth the extent to which we 
may proceed in our efforts to guard against the consequences 
of a bishop's improprieties. The expulsion contemplated is 
doubtless from office. For though depose is the word generally 
used in such connections, expel is not less significant of the 
thing. To put out of office is expulsion. If any dispute, 
and say the expulsion must be from orders, or from the 
Church, we answer, a power to expel from Church is certainly 
equal to the power of removing from office. The child who has 
license to play all day need not dread the rod for playing half 
a day ; and the boy who is told he may ride ten cannot dis- 
obey by riding five miles. That argument is hard pushed 
which resorts to the phrase, "have power to expel," to prove 
that the Conference has not power to depose. 1 ''Improper con- 
duct " means less than imprudent conduct. Imprudence car- 
ries our thoughts to the neighborhood of crime. It means a 



The General Conference of 1844. 399 



want of wisdom to a degree which involves exposure and 
harm. Improper means simply not suitable, or unfitting. The 
usus loquendi in the Discipline forbids us to assume that in 
some generic sense it embraces crime. Whatever is unfitting 
a bishop's office, and would impair his usefulness in the exer- 
cise of its functions, is embraced, I conceive, in the phrase 
" improper conduct." In the Discipline it is used in contra- 
distinction from crime. And it is never treated as crime in 
the administration, except when a private member, after fre- 
quent admonitions, obstinately refuses to reform. In such a 
case obstinacy itself becomes a criminal state of mind, and 
may procure expulsion. Finally the phrase, "if they see it 
necessary," sheds light on the whole paragraph. It proves 
that improper does not mean criminal; for then it would be 
necessary, and the condition would be useless. The phrase 
accords to the Conference discretionary power, and invites 
them to proceed on the ground of " expediency," of which 
some have loudly complained. They may expel him, if they 
see it to be proper or expedient — that is, if his improprieties 
injure his usefulness in the high office where our suffrages 
placed him. 

Continuing, he said : 

My mind, sir, if not my words, has all along distinguished 
"between orders and office. The summary removals which I have 
noticed are from office, not from the ministry. In regard to 
ordained preachers, these two rules will hold: First, they 
cannot be expelled from the ministry summarily; but must 
have a trial in due form. Second, they cannot be expelled for 
"improper conduct," but only for a crime clearly forbidden 
in the word of God. . . . But if others, they too may be de- 
posed from office summarily, ,and for improprieties which, 
even if they be innocent, hinder their usefulness, or render 
their ministrations a calamity. That the bishop's is an office 
is, I suppose, conceded. True, we ordain him ; but we may 
cease to ordain, and, by suspending the Conference rule which 



400 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



requires a day's delay, may immediately blot from the Disci- 
pline these words (page 26) : ''and the laying on of the hands 
of three bishops, or at least of one bishop and two elders." 
Would not this harmonize our practice and our principles ? . . . 

We have seen that, when clerical orders or membership in 
the Church is concerned, crime only, or obstinate impropriety, 
which is as crime, can expel. This is Methodism. We have 
seen, on the other hand, that, as to office, removals from it may 
be summary, and for any thing unfitting that office, or that 
renders its exercise unwholesome to the Church. ... I urged 
this fashion of Methodism as applicable especially to a bishop, 
because his superior influence will render his improprieties 
proportionably more embarrassing and injurious to the Church. 
. . . Shall one elder holding a high office at our hands be so 
puissant that, like the sun in the heavens (though he be a planet 
still, and in his office reflects no light which we have not shed 
upon him), he must bind and control all, but is in turn to be 
controlled by none? No, sir. This Conference is the sun in 
our orderly and beautiful system. . . . When the Church is 
about to suffer a detriment which we by constitutional power 
can avert, it is as much treason in us not to exercise the power we 
have as to usurp in other circumstances that which we have not.* 

Some of the Southern delegates opposed such views 
as have been quoted, and it is evident that, in the 
effort to defend their bishop, they were driven to the 
necessity of making claims for the episcopacy which 
were novel, and which had not been received by the 
Church itself. After the Conference had, by a large 
majority, pronounced against Bishop Andrew, the 
Southern members, who were in the minority, filed a 
protest embodying views to which some of the minor- 
it}' had given expression during the progress of the 
* Debates of General Conference of 1844, pp. 128-134. 



The General Conference of 1844. 401 



discussion. " The Protest " of the Southern dele- 
gates does not deny, but admits, that the bishopric is 
an office — " the episcopal office " — and an " official " 
" station," and refers to the bishops as " officers " and 
" executive officers ; " but it claims that " the episco- 
pacy is a co-ordinate branch, the executive depart- 
ment proper, of the government." * 

Dr. Bond, who was present at this Conference, says : 

To sustain this view of the episcopacy, its advocates were 
compelled to take High- Church grounds, bordering upon 
Puseyism itself. Our episcopacy, they alleged, " in its 
origin and perpetuation, is derived from Mr. Wesley alone ; " 
and the right of episcopal jurisdiction is communicated in or- 
dination, and not in election by the General Conference. Here 
is the divine right of succession with a vengeance, differing 
from the prelatical pretension only in deriving the succession 
through presbyters instead of bishops; for Mr. Wesley was 
only a presbyter. He had expressly denounced the prelatical 
doctrine of succession as a fable; and we are not to suppose, 
without some proof, that he held the doctrine of succession 
through presbyters as a whit more orthodox than through 
prelates, t 

Alluding to the rule of the Discipline making the 
bishops amenable to the General Conference, Dr. 
Bond says : 

The minority of the Conference, finding it impossible to 
evade the force or escape the consequences of this rule of 
discipline, resorted, in their speeches and "Protest," to doc- 
trines in respect to Methodist episcopacy which, if not entirely 
new, had only been attributed by the most bitter enemies of 

* Appendix H, General Conference Journal, 1844. 
f Methodist Quarterly Review, 1851, p. 412. 

26 



402 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

our Church government, and which had been disavowed as a 
slander by its defenders.* 

He further observes : 

But these High- Church notions of episcopal authority, inde- 
pendence, and jurisdiction had to encounter the well-settled 
theory of Methodist episcopacy, as stated and explained by 
the first bishops of the Church, and by Dr. Emory in his 
Defense of the Fathers, and it was crushed and annihilated by 
the contact. . . . The High-Church notions of episcopal au- 
thority and independence assumed in the Protest constituted 
no part of primitive American Methodism, or of the opinions 
of those who instituted Methodist episcopacy. Nor has there 
been any change in this respect since the present form of 
Church government was instituted.! 

Again, he says : 

It would appear, therefore, that this novel doctrine of epis- 
copal authority and jurisdiction was taken up by the delegates 
from the slave-holding Conferences to serve a purpose, and 
was founded on no just or tenable grounds whatever.}; 

When the "Protest" was presented, Mr. Simpson, 
as the report terms one who afterward was honored 
as Bishop Simpson, offered a resolution declaring that 
" they could not admit the statements put forth in 
the Protest," and directing " that a committee, con- 
sisting of Messrs. Durbin, Olin, and Hamline, be 
appointed to make a true statement of the case to be 
entered on the Journal." § This showed that u Mr." 
Simpson, the future bishop, denied the positions of 

* Methodist Quarterly Review, 1851, p. 411. 

f Ibid., 1851, p. 412. % Ibid., 1851, p. 413. 

§ Debates of General Conference of 1844, p. 212. 



The General Conference of 1844. 403 



the minority, and the composition of his proposed 
committee showed what views he desired affirmed. 

The above committee was ordered, but when Dr. 
Hamline had been elected bishop, and Dr. Olin had 
gone home, Dr. George Peck and Dr. Charles Elliott, 
on motion of Mr. Simpson, were put in their places. 

This very able committee presented a reply to the 
"Protest," in which they remark: 

In order to make out that the General Conference had no 
right to take such action as they have in Bishop Andrew's 
case, the authors of the Protest have been driven to the neces- 
sity of claiming for the Methodist episcopacy powers and 
prerogatives never advanced before, except by those who 
wished to make it odious, and which have always been re- 
pudiated by its chosen champions. The Protest maintains 
that "the episcopacy is a co-ordinate branch of the govern- 
ment;" for which no argument is adduced save this — that it 
is, in general, the province of bishops to ordain bishops ; a 
sufficient answer to which may be found in the principle of 
Methodist polity, stated in the address of the bishops to the 
present General Conference, that orders (the principle applies 
to bishops, though not expressly named, as well as to elders 
and deacons) are "conferred" by the election, and only "con- 
firmed " by the ordination ; and that when the election has 
been made the bishop "has no discretional authority, but is 
under obligation to ordain the person elected, whatever may 
be his own judgment of his qualifications." And if all the 
bishops should refuse to ordain the person elected by the Gen- 
eral Conference, that body would unquestionably have the 
right to appoint any three elders to ordain him, as is provided 
"in case there be no bishop remaining in our Church." The 
Protest declares that "the bishops are, beyond doubt, an in- 
tegral constituent part of the General Conference, made such 



404: The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



bylaw and the constitution." If the words " General Con- 
ference " be not a mere clerical error, the assertion is sufficient- 
ly refuted by the answer in the Discipline to the question, 
" Who shall compose the General Conference?" and by the 
practice of the bishops themselves, who disclaim a right to 
give even a casting vote, or even to speak in General Con- 
ference, except by permission. The Protest maintains that, 
' 1 in a sense by no means unimportant, the General Conference 
is as much the creature of the episcopacy as the bishops are 
the creatures of the General Conference : " the proof adduced 
for which is, that " constitutionally the bishops alone have the 
right to fix the time of holding the Annual Conference ; and 
should they refuse or neglect to do so, no Annual Conference 
could meet according to law; and, by consequence, no dele- 
gates could be chosen, and no General Conference could be 
chosen, or even exist;" that is to say, because for the con- 
venience of the bishops in performing their tour they are al- 
lowed to say at what time in the year an Annual Conference shall 
meet; therefore they have the power to prevent such body 
from meeting at all, though, from its very name, it must meet 
once a year! — that by preventing the meeting of Annual Con- 
ferences they might prevent the organization of any General 
Conference and thus, escaping all accountability for their 
delinquencies, might continue to lord it over God's heritage, 
until themselves and the Church should die a natural death. 
We can easily perceive, were this reasoning legitimate, that 
the bishops might destroy, not only the General Conference, 
but the Church ; but are at a loss to discover how it proves 
that they can create either. We must protest against having 
any argument of ours adduced as analogous to this. 

The Protest maintains that "the General Conference has no 
right, power, or authority, ministerial, judicial, or adminis- 
trative," in any way to subject a bishop "to any official dis- 
ability whatever, without the formal presentation of a charge 
or charges, alleging that the bishop to be dealt with has been 
guilty of the violation of some law, or at least some disciplin- 



The General Conference of 1844. 405 



ary obligation of the Church, and also upon conviction of such 
charge, after due form of trial." To those who are not famil- 
iar with the Methodist economy this might seem plausible; 
but it is, in reality, an attempt to except, from the action of a 
general system, those who, least of all, ought to be excepted. 
The cardinal feature of our polity is the itinerancy. 

To sustain this system it is essential that the classes should 
receive the leaders that are appointed by the preacher; that 
the societies should receive the preachers that are stationed 
over them by the bishops ; that the Annual Conferences 
should receive the bishops that are sent to them by the Gen- 
eral Conference. Unless, therefore, the utmost care be taken 
by those who have authority in the premises, that these parties 
shall severally be acceptable to those among whom they labor, 
there is great danger that those who are injured by such 
neglect may seek redress by revolutionary measures. For this 
reason the officers of the Methodist Church are subjected 
regularly to an examination unknown, it is believed, among 
other denominations. Not only is provision made for formal 
trials, in cases of crimes and misdemeanors, but there is a 
special arrangement for the correction of other obstructions 
to official usefulness. At every Annual Conference the char- 
acter of every traveling preacher is examined; at every Gen- 
eral Conference that of every bishop. And the object is to 
ascertain not merely whether there is ground for the formal 
presentation of the charges, with a view to a regular trial, 
but whether there is "any objection" — any thing that might 
interfere with the acceptance of the officer in question among 
his charge. And it is doctrine novel and dangerous in the Meth- 
odist Church that such difficulties cannot be corrected unless 
the person objected to be formally arraigned under some spe- 
cific law, to be found in the concise code of the Discipline — 
doctrine not the less dangerous because it is applied where 
"objections," unimportant in others, might be productive 
of the most disastrous consequences. Will the Methodist 
Church sanction the doctrine that while all its other officers, 



406 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



of whatever name or degree, are subjected to a sleepless super- 
vision, are counseled, admonished, or changed, "as necessity 
may require, and as the Discipline directs," a bishop, -who 
decides all questions of law in Annual Conferences ; who, of 
his mere motion and will, controls the work and destiny of 
four thousand ministers ; who appoints and changes at pleas- 
ure the spiritual guides of four millions of souls; that the de- 
pository of these vast powers, whose slightest indiscretions or 
omissions are likely to disturb the harmony, and even im- 
pair the efficiency of our mighty system of operations, enjoys 
a virtual impunity for all delinquencies or misdoings not 
strictly criminal ? 

It is believed that an attempt to establish such an episcopal 
supremacy would fill not only a part, but the whole of the 
Church "with alarm and dismay." But this doctrine is not 
more at variance with the genius of Methodism than it is with 
the express language of the Discipline, and the exposition of 
it by all our standard writers. The constitution of the Church 
provides that "the General Conference shall have full power 
to make rules and regulations for our Church," under six 
"limitations and restrictions," among which the only one re- 
lating to the episcopacy is this: They shall not change or alter 
any part or rule of our government so as to do away episcopacy, 
or destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendence 7 ." 
As there is nothing in the restrictive rules to limit the full 
powers of the General Conference in the premises, so is there 
nothing in the special provision respecting the responsibility 
of a bishop. In reply to the question, "To whom is a bishop 
amenable for his conduct?" the Discipline declares, "To 
the General Conference, who have power to expel him for 
improper conduct, if they see it necessary." And this, be it 
remembered, is all that is said respecting the jurisdiction over 
a bishop, with the exception of a rule for his trial, in the in- 
terval of a General Conference, if he be guilty of immorality. 
In full accordance with the plain meaning of these provisions 
is the language of all the standard writers on Methodist polity. 



The General Conference of 1844. 407 



Bishop Emory, a man of whom it is no injustice to the liv- 
ing or the dead to say that he was a chief ornament and light 
of our episcopacy ; that he brought to the investigation of all 
ecclesiastical subjects a cool, sagacious, powerful, practical 
intellect, fully sustains the positions we have assumed in be- 
half of the powers of the General Conference over the bishops 
of our Church. He gives an unqualified assent to the follow- 
ing passage from the notes to the Discipline prepared by 
Bishops Asbury and Coke, at the request of the General Con- 
ference : i ' They (our bishops) are entirely dependent on the 
General Conference;" ' 1 their power, their usefulness, them- 
selves, are entirely at the mercy of the General Conference." 

Dr. Emory also quotes some passages from a pamphlet by 
the Rev. John Dickins, which, he says, was published by the 
unanimous request of the Philadelphia Conference, and may 
be considered as expressing the views both of that Conference 
and of Bishop Asbury, his intimate friend. Mr. Dickins 
affirms that the bishops derive their power from the election 
of the General Conference, and not from their ordination; and 
that the Conference has on that ground power to remove 
Bishop Asbury, and appoint another, "if they see it neces- 
sary." He affirms that Bishop Asbury "derived his official 
power from the Conference, and therefore his office is at their 
disposal." Mr. Asbury was "responsible to the General Con- 
ference, who had power to remove him, if they saw it neces- 
sary ; " ' ' he is liable every year to be removed." 

The above quotations show very clearly the sentiments of 
Asbury and Coke and Dickins on this question — men chiefly 
instrumental in laying the foundations of our polity. 

Equally clear and satisfactory is the testimony of another 
venerable bishop, who still lives, in the full exercise of his 
mental powers and benignant influence, to guide and bless 
the Church: " The superintendents now have no power in the 
Church above that of elders, except what is connected with 
presiding in the Conference, fixing the appointments of the 
preachers, and ordaining." ''They are the servants of the 



408 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

elders, and go out and execute their commands;" "the 
General Conference may expel a bishop not only for immoral 
but ' improper conduct,' which means a small offense below a 
crime; for which not even a child or a slave can be expelled 
but after repeated admonitions;" u the traveling preachers 
gave the bishop his power, they continue it in his hands, and 
they can reduce, limit, or transfer it to other hands, whenever 
they see cause." Such is the language of Bishop Hedding, 
who only concurs in the moderate, truly Methodistic views of 
Bishops Asbury, Coke, and Emory,* 

This reply, which had been ordered by the Confer- 
ence, was, on motion of E. R. Ames, subsequently 
made bishop, ordered to be entered upon the Jour- 
nal and to be printed, by a vote of 116 for and 26 
against, f and so it became the expression of the Con- 
ference. 

These views are that the bishops are presbyters 
and that the episcopate is an office under the control 
of the General Conference, and the action of the 
Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew is based 
upon that ground. These views were sustained by a 
large majority, and, as the minority subsequently 
seceded, it left the view of the majority the view of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. This Conference 
not only expressed its own opinion, but declared that 
the position maintained by it had been the doctrine 
of the Church from the beginning. 

* Gen. Conf. Jour, of 1844, pp. 206-209. Ibid., pp. 142, 143. 



The Episcopate fbom 1814 to 1884 409 



CHAPTEK X. 

THE EPISCOPATE FROM 1844 TO 1884. 

IN 1847 the Kev. Abel Stevens, LL.D., the cele- 
brated historian of Methodism, issued his work on 
Church Polity. In this he has a chapter with the 
heading, "Bishops and Presbyters the Same in Or- 
der." After citing many authorities, and presenting 
many arguments proving that bishops are the same in 
order as presbyters, he says : 

The episcopacy of the Methodist Church is precisely in 
accordance with the foregoing views ; that is, it is presbyte- 
rian, our bishops being considered but presbyters in order, 
differing from presbyters only in office, as primi inter pares, first 
among equals.* 

In another chapter, on the " Origin of the Method- 
ist Episcopacy," speaking of the title bishop, he says : 
" Wesley did not condemn the office, which he ap- 
proved and created, but merely the name." f Fur- 
ther, he says, " The bishops are considered to be of the 
same ministerial order, having only a distinct office, 
which itself is based on expediency, not on an alleged 
apostolic succession" J 

Passing to the General Conference of 1852, we 
find that at its session occurred a memorable event 

* Stevens's Church Polity, p. 61. f Ibid., p. 90. \ Ibid., p. 168. 



410 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



which strengthened the former views of the Church 
in regard to its episcopacy. The General Confer- 
ence Journal of May 10, 1852, has this record : 

The superintendents presented a communication from Bishop 
Hamline, tendering his resignation of the episcopal office, 
which was read ; also, a letter from his physicians, which was 
read.* 

Bishop Hamline's resignation contained these 
words : 

And now I think that the circumstances warrant my declin- 
ing the office. Eight years ago I felt that Divine Providence 
had strangely called me to the office. I now feel that the same 
Providence permits me to retire. I therefore tender my res- 
ignation, and request to be released from my official responsi- 
bilities, as soon as the w T ay is prepared by the episcopal 
committee.! 

The resignation was referred to the Committee on 
Episcopacy, of which the Kev. P. P. Sandford was 
chairman, and on which were such men as Dr. N. 
Bangs, Dr. John S. Porter, and the Rev. Alfred 
Griffith. The Committee the very next day reported 
in favor of approving Bishop Hamline's administra- 
tion and character, and this the Conference unani- 
mously agreed to. The committee also submitted 
the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the resignation of Bishop Hamline of his 
office as a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America be, and the same hereby is, ac- 
cepted. 

* General Conference Journal, 1852, p. 36. \Ibid., pp. 41, 42. 



The Episcopate feom 1844 to 1884. 411 



For this resolution the Rev. J. A. Collins submit- 
ted the following as a substitute : 

Resolved, By the delegates of the several Annual Conferences, 
in General Conference assembled, that the bishops be, and 
they hereby are, requested to return to Bishop Haniline his 
parchment accompanied with a communication informing him 
that this General Conference declines accepting his resignation 
as a superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
grants him unrestricted permission, and advises him to adopt 
and pursue such course for the restoration of his health as his 
judgment may dictate. 

A motion was made to lay this on the table, and on 
it the yeas and nays were called, and the substitute 
was laid on the table by a vote of one hundred and 
sixty-one yeas to only ten nays ; and among those who 
voted to lay it on the table were L. Scott, M. Simp- 
son, O. C. Baker, E. R. Ames, E. Thomson, and C. 
Kingsley, all of whom were made bishops, the first 
four being elected at that Conference. 

The resignation was then accepted, and the follow- 
ing resolution, offered by the Rev. J. A. Collins, was 
adopted : 

Resolved, By the delegates of the several Annual Conferences, 
in General Conference assembled, that the bishops be, and 
hereby are, respectfully requested to convey to Bishop Ham- 
line the acceptance of his resignation as a superintendent of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church by the General Conference, 
accompanied with a communication expressing the profound 
regret of this body that the condition of his health has, in his 
judgment, rendered it proper for him to relinquish his official 
position ; assuring him also of our continued confidence and 
affection, and that our fervent prayers will be offered to the 



412 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

throne of grace that his health may be restored and his life 
prolonged to the Church.* 

The language used, both' by the bishop and the 
Conference, showed that both held that the episco- 
pacy was an office, and the action of Bishop Ham line 
and the Conference showed that it was an office from 
which a bishop could resign and cease to be a bishop, 
and, ceasing to be a bishop, would take his place 
among the elders in an Annual Conference. 

All this is contrary to the notion of the episco- 
pacy as a higher order. In Churches which believe 
that the bishop has an order distinct from and supe- 
rior to that of a presbyter, it is held that a bishop 
may resign his jurisdiction but that he does not 
cease to be a bishop. In the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, however, when a bishop resigns his jurisdic- 
tion, he resigns every thing which he has above that 
of an ordinary presbyter. He resigns his office, but 
retains his order as a presbyter ; and so Bishop Ham- 
line, when he resigned the " episcopal office," ceased 
to be a bishop, and went back as a mere elder to the 
Ohio Conference, to which he belonged at the time he 
was elected bishop, and that Conference, of which he 
had once more become a member, granted him a su- 
perannuated relation ; f so that Bishop Hamline, the 
elder in the episcopate, became again Doctor Ham- 
line, an elder among elders in an Annual Conference. 

* General Conference Journal, 1852, pp. 41-43. 
f McClintock & Strong's Cydo., art. "Hamline." 



The Episcopate from 1844 to 1884. 413 



Thus again Methodism denied the doctrine " Once a 
bishop always a bishop." 

The Kev. T. M. Eddy, D.D., in his sketch of 
Bishop Hamline, referring to his resignation, says : 

It was not broken health alone which led him to this decis- 
ion, or a desire to be entirely free from care. He was actu- 
ated by a sense of high consistency. In 1844 he held and 
maintained, with great force, that the Methodist episcopate is 
not an exalted order of the holy ministry, but an office of grave 
responsibility and dignity, it is true, but still an office— and one 
which can be vacated for disqualification by the General Con- 
ference without the formality of an impeachment, or by the 
voluntary retirement of the officer. . . . Now he would do the 
Church the service of showing by example that it could not be 
vacated by the resignation of an incumbent. He meant in 1852 
to emphasize the doctrine he taught eight years before.* 

Dr. Eddy also remarks that 

A brief but historic debate followed, and the final action 
was an assertion of the Low Church theory of the episcopacy.! 

From the organization of the Church, in 1784, the 
service for setting apart the bishops contained the 
following : 

Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a bishop 
in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the impo- 
sition of our hands, etc. 

That Wesley, with his Low Church views, permit- 
ted this to remain in the service shows that the ritual 
was prepared in such haste that there was not suffi- 
cient time to make a thorough revision. 

♦Flood and Hamilton's Lives of Methodist Bishops, p. 302. 
f Ibid., p. 303. 



414 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



That the Church for so many years had tolerated it, 
when it was inconsistent with the general teachings 
of the Church, shows either that the Church was so 
conservative that it made changes slowly, or that no 
one up to that time had been misled by the phrase- 
ology, or that the Church had been too busy with 
other matters to give it the attention it deserved. 

The latter explanation is the most probable. From 
the beginning, the Church had heart, head, and 
hands full of practical work, and the prevailing Low 
Church ideas had prevented this phraseology from 
modifying the true doctrine of the Church. 

At first the Church was engrossed by the evan- 
gelistic movements which were necessary in the form- 
ative period of the denomination. Then it had to 
defend itself against the antagonism of those who se- 
ceded from it or who belonged to other communions. 
Then came the great controversy on the slavery ques- 
tion which culminated in the discussion and decision 
in the General Conference of 1844, and which was 
followed by the secession of the Southern section and 
the formation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, in 1845. After this came many questions 
which were sequences from the separation, so that the 
Church had not time to correct errors which perhaps 
were considered of only minor importance, or which 
were scarcely noticed in the rush and excitement fo 
an eventful history. Now, however, the time had 
arrived when it was deemed necessary to eliminate 



The Episcopate from 1844 to 1884. 



415 



some of these inconsistent expressions, and in the 
General Conference of 1852 the Kev. Calvin Kings- 
ley, afterward bishop, submitted a resolution to strike 
out the objectionable phrases, and make that part of 
the service read : 

The Lord pour upon thee the Holy Ghost for the office and 
work of a bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto 
thee by the imposition of our hands, etc.* 

The resolution, which was seconded by Dr. James 
Porter, was laid over under the rule governing such 
matters, and as it was not presented until near the 
close of the session the pressure of other business 
prevented its being reached. There was also pre- 
sented a communication from the Troy Conference 
referring to an amendment to the ritual, which 
showed that the Church generally was beginning to 
demand a re vision, f 

In the General Conference of 1856 the question 
of the revision of the Church ritual came up again. 
Dr. John McClintock, who had been chairman of a 
similar committee in 1852, was made chairman of 
this committee, but, for a time, presumably during 
the absence of Dr. McClintock, Dr. F. G. Hibbard 
acted as chairman. On motion of Dr. McClintock, 
the papers presented by the Committee on Kevisals 
in 1852 were referred to the new committee.;): 

Dr. McClintock offered a resolution instructing the 

♦General Conference Journal, 1852, p. 87. 

f Ibid., 1852, p. 15. % IUd -i 1856 > P- 53 - 



416 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Committee on Revisals " to inquire whether any, and 
what, verbal alteration or change of arrangement in 
the Book of Discipline be necessary,"* and Dr. Hib- 
bard moved that the Committee on Revisals be in 
structed "to report some method of revising the 
rituals of our Church." f 

This committee reported that the rituals had various 
defects, and chiefly because 

their pertinency and salutary influence "are seriously " affected 
by the declaration of sentiments, which are not only irrelevant 
to the occasion, but in some instances adverse to the genius 
of our faith and of our Church polity. Nor is this matter of 
surprise when we consider that our denominational and our 
Church polity both were borrowed from the rubrics of a foreign 
Church. . . . 

The errors in our rituals are greatly mitigated and neutral- 
ized on the one hand by the softening terms which we have 
from time to time introduced, and on the other from important 
omissions from the English Prayer Book. They do not, there- 
fore, threaten any immediate injury, and, with the modifying 
sense which our denominational faith and piety affix to the 
language, may continue safely for a while to be used. But 
their tendency is to beget, by imperceptible advances, a faith 
in our membership contrary to our standards; and if suf- 
fered to remain in future as now, and should our Church ever 
decline from her present spiritual life and relapse into an 
inert formalism, she would find in her Discipline the ma- 
terials to vindicate baptismal regeneration, the apostolical 
succession of bishops, and the doctrine of three priestly 
orders. 

A large portion of our ministry and membership are grieved 
to find in our most solemn forms the sanction of doctrines 
which neither we nor our fathers believe. J 

* Gen. Conf. Jour., 1856. p. 59. f Ibid., p. 77. \ Ibid., p. 292. 



The Episcopate from 1844 to 1884 417 

This is remarkable language. It shows that phrases 
in the ritual were liable to an interpretation which 
the Church in 1856 did not accept and which the 
fathers did not believe — that, receiving a hastily pre- 
pared service from a " foreign Church," the Church 
had always been compelled to qualify these expres- 
sions and especially by u the modifying sense which 
our denominational faith and piety affix to the lan- 
guage," and, consequently, the doctrine of the Church 
was not to be inferred from these phrases in the 
ritual. 

This report also shows that the Church in that day 
did not believe in " the apostolical succession of 
bishops," or " the doctrine of three priestly orders," 
but that it foresaw the danger that by imperceptible 
advances through familiarity with misleading words 
and phrases there might be begotten " a faith in our 
membership contrary to our standards," so that, as 
this tendency continued, the Church might come to 
believe that the Church had " three priestly orders," 
and even to believe in " the apostolical succession of 
bishops." 

The General Conference, therefore, appointed a 
committee of five to revise the rituals.* The matter 
again came up in the General Conference of 1860, 
and the Rev. Davis W. Clark was made chairman of 
the committee to which the subject was referred. 
The result of the further inquiry was that the com- 
* General Conference Journal, 1856, p. 168. 

27 



418 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



mittee was instructed to report at an early day to the 
next General Conference.* 

In the General Conference of 1864 Dr. Davis 
W. Clark again was made chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Revisals, and he acted as such until he was 
elected bishop, when Dr. Freeborn G. Hibbard took 
his place. The Rev. Dr. Daniel Curry says that Dr. 
Clark " was especially concerned in preparing and 
carrying through the Conference the revised ritual of 
the Church, of which he was, more than any other, 
the author." f 

This committee recommended various changes in 
the ritual, and especially in the service for bishops, 
and on its recommendation the General Conference 
struck out the word " ordination," which was mis- 
leading, and, according to the well settled doctrine of 
the Church, a misnomer, and substituted the word 
" consecration." The Church had been charged with 
inconsistency in calling a service an " ordination " 
when it did not exalt to a higher " order," and while 
its bishops were only elders ; and, so, to be consistent 
in form, as well as in fact, and to check supposed 
High-Church tendencies :{; or dangers, this substitu- 
tion and other marked changes were made by the 
General Conference.§ 

* General Conference Journal, 1860, p. 305. 

fDr. Curry, on Bishop Clark, in Lives of Methodist Bishops, p. 410. 
\ So say Dr. F. G. Hibbard and Dr. Bostwick Hawley, who were 
members of the committee. 

§ General Conference Journal, 1864, pp. 126, 246, 471. 



The Episcopate fjrom 1644 to 1884. 419 

The word " ordination" had been used in reference 
to the service for bishops, but it was used in a quali- 
fied sense as not an "ordering" service, and as far 
back as 1792 the word " consecration " had been put 
in the Discipline evidently to show a distinction be- 
tween the service for the ordination of elders, which 
carried with it the idea of order, and the service for 
bishops, which carried with it the idea of office ; 
and in the same way Bishops Coke and Asbury used 
the word " consecration " in their Notes on the Disci- 
pline, which were published in 1796 by the authority 
of the Conference. The word " ordination " had 
been permitted to stand thus qualified because the 
attention of the Church had been taken up with 
urgent matters, and because, as the report of the com- 
mittee in 1856 shows, the ritual had not been looked 
upon as the exponent of the doctrines of the Church. 

Since the action of the General Conference of 
1864, consecration and not ordination is the proper 
and legal title of the service for setting apart bishops. 
Churches which hold that their bishops have a higher 
order as well as office use both " ordination " and 
" consecration," but the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
holding that bishops have no higher order than other 
presbyters, but that they have a higher office, uses 
the word " consecrate" in the sense that Wesley used 
the phrase " set apart " for official duty. 

In 1866 Dr. Abel Stevens issued his book entitled 
The Centenary of American Methodism. In it, when 



420 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

referring to the polity of the Methodist Episcopal 

Church, he says : 

Its own system is essentially presbyterian, a presbyterian 
episcopacy. Its bishop is a presbyter in " order, " though a 
bishop in office ; a presbyter superintending the body of pres- 
byters, primus inter pares — first among equals. 

The Rev. James Mitchell, D.D., in his Life of 
Bishop Levi Scott, says of the bishop : 

He had no respect for this hankering of a few after the 
faded tinsel of sacramentarianism, but clung to the theory of a 
strong executive board of supervision for the Church, the 
whole thought of which he expressed in one word, through 
his wonderful power of condensation, at a session of the Indi- 
ana Conference held in New Albany in the fall of 1871. On 
rising to read the appointments, he said among a few 
other things, ' ' Brother presbyters, I arise as a presbyter- 
bishop to give you your work for a year." That was the 
whole of it — theory, executive duty and ability.* 

The Rev. James Porter, D.D., issued his History 
of Methodism in 1876. In it, speaking of the 
bishops, he remarks, " They are not higher in order, 
and are only officers, as our Church claims," f and he 
speaks from an intimate acquaintance with the history 
and views of the Church, from a ministerial life of 
over half a century, and from a General Conference 
experience which began with his membership in the 
great Conference of 1844. 

In 1876 Bishop Simpson's history, entitled A Hun- 
dred Years of Methodism, was issued. In it he says : 

* Dr. Mitchell's Life of Bishop Scott, p. 52. 
f Porter's History of Methodism, p. 414. 



The Episcopate from 1844 to 1884. 421 



" The Methodist episcopacy is regarded as an office in 
the Church, not distinct in order from the elder- 
ship." * Speaking of bishops he says : " They are 
simply executive or administrative officers." 

In 1878 the Rev. E. O. Haven, D.D., who was 
made a bishop about two years later, referred to the 
bishopric as an office, and said : 

Men to perform this office need no undefined and indefin- 
able halo, such as the unthinking may suppose to be connected 
with a fabulous apostolic succession. They are elders selected 
to perform a peculiar and responsible work, f 

Thus throughout this period the authorities of the 
Church have held the doctrine of the parity of the 
orders of bishop and elder. 

* Bishop Simpson's Hundred Years of Methodism, p. 228. 
\ Methodist Quarterly Review, 1818, p. 397. 



422 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



CHAPTEK XL 

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OP 1884. 

OW and then, during the first half of the century, 
it is possible that an isolated individual here 
and there in the Church may have carelessly used 
expressions not strictly in harmony with the teaching 
of the denomination in regard to its episcopacy, but 
these incorrect expressions had no force in changing 
the views of the Church. 

In the General Conference of 1844 a few uttered 
sentiments " claiming for the Methodist episcopacy 
powers and prerogatives never advanced before " in 
the Church, and the Conference overwhelmed their 
advocates both by arguments and votes. 

In later years a very few began to use the words 
order and office in a sense to which the Church had 
not been accustomed. Sometimes it was suggested 
that there was no difference between the word order 
and the word office, and finally, from the indefinite 
use of these words there was developed that which 
looked like a positive claim that the Church had three 
ministerial orders, and that the bishopric was a cler- 
ical order superior to and distinct from the eldership. 
Possibly this was the result of a natural tendency 




The General Conference of 1884. 423 



which had always existed, and which might assert it- 
self at any time should the Church be off its guard, 
and especially, as in 1844, if some important point 
was to be gained. In a few instances it may have 
had its motive in a hankering after an ecclesiasticism 
which our Church has always rejected ; but it is 
probable that generally these erroneous views sprang 
from incomplete knowledge of the history of the 
Church's polity. Certainly no one acquainted with 
the views of the Church, which we have cited, could 
truly affirm that the Church ever held any doctrine 
contrary to the parity of presbyters and bishops as to 
orders, but the authorities for the century had not 
then been collated, and much of the error grew out 
of lack of knowledge. Nevertheless the incorrect 
views were none the less dangerous. 

In the General Conference of 1884 one of the min- 
isterial delegates, in the course of a speech, used the 
High-Church expression, " Once a bishop always a 
bishop." This may have been unintentional, but 
whether intentional or unintentional it was not pru- 
dent to permit it to pass unchallenged, and to stand 
in the printed reports without the Conference putting 
something on record which would counteract its mis- 
chievous tendency. 

The writer, being a member of that General Con- 
ference, therefore prepared, and at the earliest oppor- 
tunity, namely, on the 15th of May, presented the 
following resolution : 



424 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



Resolved, That we re-affirm the doctrine of the fathers of 
our Church, that the, bishopric is not an order but an office, 
and that in orders a bishop is merely an elder or presbyter.* 

After the author of the resolution had spoken at 
some length, a member moved to refer the resolution 
to the Committee on Episcopacy,f but the merits of 
the whole subject were quite fully discussed by at 
least a half a dozen speakers, a larger number than 
usually gained the floor on most questions. At last, 
after the previous question was ordered, the Confer- 
ence rendered its decision. The first vote was not 
upon the resolution itself, but upon the motion to 
refer the resolution to a standing committee. 

For such a body to refer such a question to a* com- 
mittee would be like the Senate of the United States 
sending a resolution affirming that it was the view of 
the fathers of the country that the presidency of the 
United States was an office and not an order of no- 
bility, and that the president was a citizen like other 
citizens, to a committee to examine the school books 
and then report, so that the Senate might understand 
the facts and know how to vote. The Conference 
was familiar with the teaching of the Church, and 
did not need the assistance of a committee. 

If the Conference had wanted to avoid the issue it 
would have agreed to the reference, but it was evi- 
dent that the Conference had positive convictions 

* General Conference Journal of 1884, p. 207. 

f Debates in Daily Chrutiun Advocate, 1884, p. 107. 



The General Conference of 1884. 425 



and desired to make a deliverance upon the subject, 
and so the motion to refer was voted down by a 
heavy majority. Thus the body deliberately brought 
itself face to face with the main question, and then 
passed the resolution by an overwhelming vote.* 

The eminent Dr. Daniel Curry, in advocating the 
passage of the resolution, declared that the erroneous 
opinion had appeared in various publications. He 
said : 

I certainly have found it in print. Some of our ablest, 
brightest, recent discussions on the subject have assumed the 
contrary doctrines, at least by stating the case.f 

The passage of the resolution was opposed by a 
few, because they claimed it was not necessary ; but 
no one denied that the resolution expressed the doc- 
trine of the " fathers " and of the Church itself. On 
the contrary, every speaker admitted that to be the 
fact. Dr. Buckley said : 

There is one thing settled in Methodism from the beginning 
until now, that our bishops are presbyters or elders. J 

This General Conference was thoroughly compe- 
tent to give an authoritative deliverance upon this 
question, and possibly more so than any future Gen- 
eral Conference can be, for it contained members 
who had been prominent ministers of the Church for 
about a half a century, and had been members of 
General Conferences running back to 1844 or 1848, 

* Daily Christian Advocate, 1884, pp. 105, 107. 
\Ibid. y p. 107. % Ibid., p. 107. • 



426 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



besides many who had made the polity of the Church 
a life study. No future General Conference is likely 
to have so many members whose lives will run back 
so near to the " fathers" and the early discussions, 
and so, in that particular, future Conferences are not 
likely to be so well qualified. 

The Conference saw the importance of checking 
the evil in its incipiency, and so took this opportunity 
for formulating the doctrine of the Church. 

In the debate on the resolution, the Rev. Dr. Curry 
and another delegate suggested that an " explanatory " 
" bracketed note " should be inserted " at the head of 
the form of consecration for bishops," stating " what 
is our view in this case that none of our people may 
be misled, or the great public." * 

This suggestion was made on the 15th of May, 
during the progress of the discussion upon the reso- 
lution, and so had the effect of notice given at that 
date. 

On the 21st of May Dr. Curry presented a resolu- 
tion embodying such a note to be inserted in the Dis- 
ci pline.f According to the rule, it had to lie over, 
and it was printed in the Daily Christian Advocate 
of May 22. After standing in print a number of 
days, Dr. Curry called it up on the 26th of May. It 
was moved to lay it on the table, but the motion was 
voted down.J 

* Daily Christian Advocate, 1884, p. 107. \ Ibid., p. 150. 

\ General Conference Journal, 1884, p. 267. 



The General Conference of 1884. 427 

Then some one raised the point of order that it 
could not be considered without a suspension of the 
rules. This point was denied, but in order to settle all 
doubts the Conference promptly passed a motion to 
suspend the rules, and, after discussion, the Confer- 
ence, with only a few votes in opposition, passed the 
resolution,* as follows : 

Resolved, That these words be inserted as a rubric at the be- 
ginning of the ritual for the consecration of bishops : 

k ' [This service is not to be understood as an ordination to a 
higher order in the Christian ministry, beyond and above that 
of elders or presbyters, but as a solemn and fitting consecra- 
tion for the special and most sacred duties of superintendency 
in the Church.] " f 

Every thing in connection with the resolution and 
the disciplinary note shows that the Conference made 
these deliverances with great deliberation and deter- 
mination. Twice did it decide essentially the same 
thing. The passage of the first resolution committed 
the Conference to the adoption of the explanatory 
note. The action on the latter was merely a second 
decision on the same matter. Indeed, the Confer- 
ence may be said to have passed upon it at least five 
times : first, in refusing to refer the resolution to a 
committee ; second, in passing the resolution ; third, 
in voting down the motion to lay the explanatory 
note upon the table ; fourth, in passing the motion 

* Daily Christian Advocate, 1884, p. 197 ; General Conference Jour- 
nal, 1884, p. 267. 

\ Atkinson's Centennial History of American Met?wdism, p. 107. 



428 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



to suspend the rules in order to consider the explana- 
tory note ; and fifth, the adoption of the note ; and 
all this covered a period running from the 15th to 
the 26th of May; thus giving abundant time for 
reflection. 

There was another expression of view which should 
be noted. During the month the General Con- 
ference was in session the Rev. Alfred Wheeler, 
D.D., as chairman of a committee appointed by the 
General Conference of 1880* to convey the frater- 
nal greetings of the General Conference to the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, sent a 
communication to that body in which occurs the fol- 
lowing paragraph : 

You have no prelates ; we have none. Of prelacy you have 
nothing; neither have we. You have your presbuteros epis- 
kopos ; so have we. We have our episkopos presbuteros; so 
have you. Here we are at one again, as well as in those fun- 
damental doctrines to which we have before referred. And we 
propose to continue with you our protest against encumbering 
the Church with ministerial orders not known to the apostles 
and their times, t 

We have traced the doctrine as to the Methodist 
episcopate from the time it matured in the mind of 
Rev. John Wesley and took form in the organiza- 
tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Through- 
out the century from 1784 to 1884 there was no 

♦General Conference Journal, 1880, p. 394. 

f Tliis letter was read in the Presbyterian General Assembly on 
the 26th of May, .1884, 



The General Conference of 1884. 429 

break in the continuity of opinion as expressed by 
the Church in various ways, and now, at the opening 
of a new century, the General Conference of 1884 ren- 
dered its decision as to the nature of the episcopate of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, and re-affirmed the 
doctrine of the founders of the denomination. The 
deliverance of the General Conference of 1884 is in 
harmony with the doctrine held in 1784, and which 
has prevailed throughout the hundred years. The 
bishopric is an office, and the bishops are presbyters. 



430 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



CHAPTER XII. 

CONCLUSION. 

THE Methodist Episcopal Church has always recog- 
nized that there is an ordo ecclesiasticus, and 
that there are official positions which are not clerical 
orders, though they are rilled by those who have such 
orders. Thus it has its order of elders and its office 
of presiding elders ; the presiding eldership being not 
an order, but an office of supervision filled by one 
who in orders is an elder. So it has held that the 
bishopric is a higher office of supervision occupied by 
one who also is an elder, and this view is sustained 
by the consensus of a century, as gathered from the 
expressed opinions of leading exponents of Method- 
ism, from official declarations, and .from the formal 
actions of authoritative Conferences. 

Some persons have claimed that a Church has 
power to make as many orders as it pleases, and, rea- 
soning from this assumption, have alleged that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church has made three orders, 
but this is a non sequitur. Even if a body had power 
to do a thing, it does not follow that it has exerted 
that power. So in this case the inference alluded to 
is illogical. Even if it be admitted that a Church had 
power to make as many orders as it pleased, this de- 



Conclusion. 



431 



termines nothing. The question remains one of his- 
toric fact. What did it do ? How many orders did 
it make? Such questions compel us to investigate 
the records of history, and to inquire into present 
facts, if we would learn the truth. Hence we consult 
the teachings of the past and the facts of the present. 

As a matter of fact the Methodist Episcopal Church 
at its organization recognized two orders, namely, the 
order of elders and the order of deacons, and it has 
never made any others. However, though the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church has always had the diaconate 
and the presbyterate, it has never held that these two 
orders are absolutely necessary, or that it is necessary 
to have two ordinations for a valid ministry. Hence, 
though it has preferred to have the sub-order of the 
diaconate, and has two ordinations for those who 
come up into the ministry from the ranks of its laity, 
it concedes perfect liberty to other Churches to have 
the diaconate in some other form or to omit it 
entirely and to have only one clerical order, and, 
hence, it has recognized as a valid ministry that of 
Churches where the full ministry is conferred in one 
ordination, and has frequently received into its own 
ministry, without re-ordination, those who came from 
other denominations where the full ministerial func- 
tion was granted in a single ordination. It has treated 
its diaconate as a stage in the progress toward the 
presbyterate, or, in other words, as a station in the 
way, or a point in the period of probation, leading 



432 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



toward the full ministry, rather thau something that 
is absolutely necessary for a true ministry. 

In the Methodist Episcopal Church the full minis- 
try is vested in the presbyter. It recognizes no min- 
isterial function which does not inhere in the order of 
presbyters, and it has always denied the right to have 
any order above that possessed by presbyters. 

With it the episcopacy has no higher clerical func- 
tion, but is an executive expedient — a judicious ar- 
rangement, it has held, yet merely an expedient— 
which it uses as a convenience, and which it could 
modify to suit changing conditions, or even abandon 
entirely, and yet have a complete and valid Church. 

Mr. Wesley held that Church government might 
be that of the independent congregation, that under a 
presbytery, or that under episcopal supervision. He 
preferred the latter, but recognized the validity of the 
others So the Methodist Episcopal Church holds 
that there may be a legitimate Church with or with- 
out that which is commonly called the episcopal form 
of government, and on this ground it recognizes the 
validity of those Churches which are without a gen- 
eral or a diocesan supervision. 

Examination shows that the episcopate of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church has not a single element 
of a clerical order as distinct from, and superior to, 
that of the presbyters. In this Church, and in gen- 
eral ecclesiastical usage, clerical orders relate to the 
sacraments, and each clerical order has its own pecul- 



Conclusion. 



433 



iar relation to one or all the sacraments. Hence 
Churches that hold their episcopacy to be a higher 
order concede as peculiarly belonging to its so-called 
episcopal order something of the supposed nature of 
a sacrament. Thus the Roman Catholic and Greek 
Churches consider confirmation and ordination to be 
sacraments, and these they conceive as belonging ex- 
clusively to the bishops, and so they hold their epis- 
copacy to be an order superior to the eldership. 

The articles of religion of the Anglican Church 
do not teach that confirmation is a sacrament, or 
that ordination is a sacrament, and so, when these 
articles were formulated, after the Protestant Eef- 
ormation in England, the English Church did not 
hold that bishops had a higher clerical order than 
that of priests or presbyters, but that they were 
superior in office. When, however, the High-Church 
element gained strength, this school of thought gave 
to confirmation something of the nature of a sacra- 
ment, considering it, so to speak, as the completion 
of baptism, and, in the same manner, gave something 
of a sacramental character to the service of ordina- 
tion. As these acts of confirmation and ordination, 
which High - Churchmen deemed to have a sacra- 
mental or quasi-sacramental character, were considered 
as belonging exclusively to the bishops, it was an easy 
thing for High-Churchmen to conceive that the bish- 
ops had a distinct and higher order, and to claim that 

non-episcopal ordinations were invalid. 
28 



434 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

This relation of orders to the sacraments is clearly 
seen in the orders of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
It has an order of deacons, and the deacon has the 
right to baptize, and also to assist in the administra- 
tion of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It has 
the order of presbyters, and the presbyter has power, 
not only to baptize and to assist another elder in the 
communion, but he may also have full charge of 
the administration of the Lord's Supper. He has 
higher power as to the sacraments than that possessed 
by the deacon, and he has a higher clerical order. 

On the same principle, if the episcopate is a higher 
order it will have its special sacrament, or its peculiar 
prerogative as to some sacrament; but the Methodist 
Episcopal Church lias no sacrament other than those 
of baptism and the Lord's Supper, and, as to these, a 
presbyter has full control. Therefore, as a bishop 
has no greater power as to the sacraments than that 
of a mere presbyter, he has no higher order than a 
presbyter. 

It is true that the bishops of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church are charged with important duties in 
relation to the ordination of ministers, but ordination 
is not a sacrament. But even if it were this would 
not be sufficient to make a distinct order, for the 
right to ordain does not inhere exclusively in the offi- 
cers called bishops, but in the presbyters. 

It has been a cardinal principle of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church from the beginning that " bishops 



Conclusion. 



435 



and presbyters are the same order and have the same 
right to ordain," and, hence, the bishops take a chief 
part in the work of ordaining, not because it exclu- 
sively inheres in them, but because the presbyters, in 
General Conference assembled, delegated that power 
to the office. And so, in 1828, Dr. Bond said : " The 
very circumstance of our having acknowledged the 
right of elders to ordain " was proof that the bishops 
had no " distinct ministerial order, contradistinguished 
from, and superior to, presbyters or elders.' 1 

This is further seen in the fact that the statute law 
of the Church provides that, 

If by death, or otherwise, there be no bishop remaining in 
our Church the General Conference shall elect a bishop, and 
the elders, or any three of them, who shall be appointed by 
the General Conference for that purpose, shall consecrate him 
according to the ritual.* 

This law is a constant reminder that the fountain 
of ordination is in the presbyters, and an action in 
compliance with this provision is a re-assertion of the 
original and inherent rights of the presbyters. 

Further, this delegation of the duty of ordination 
in any sense to the bishops is merely an economic 
regulation for the sake of convenience and efficiency, 
and is not a concession to the episcopate that ordina- 
tion is its inherent and exclusive right. That it is 
not such an acknowledgment of episcopal prerogative 
is seen in the fact that in the matter of ordination 
the bishop has no discretionary power. He cannot 

* Discipline. 



436 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



say whom lie will or whom he will not ordain. The 
Conference designates the persons, and the bishop, as 
the legal agent of the Church, is bound to perforin 
the service. 

Again, as a matter of fact and of law, no bishop 
does by himself ordain any elder or consecrate any 
bishop. It is not his exclusive province. Other 
elders who are not superintendents always partici- 
pate, and the bishop is merely one of a number of 
presbyters who represent the Church in this act of 
ordaining. They are presbyters ; he is the chief or 
presiding presbyter, and this associated act is a per- 
petual assertion of the fact that the ordination is not 
episcopal, but presbyterial. 

So-called third order episcopates have certain con- 
ceded inherent powers, but the episcopate of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church has no inherent preroga- 
tives. All the powers it possesses are delegated 
powers, which may be added to or taken from as the 
Church may desire. Hence, in this particular, it 
lacks the quality of the so called higher order episco- 
pacy. As Bishop Hamline showed, in 1844, the 
powers which the bishops possess were imparted to 
the bishops by the General Conference. He said : 

The General Conference clothes them with these powers; 
and can the Conference convey what it does not possess ? Can 
it impart to bishops what was not inherent in itself up to the 
time of conveying it? The Conference has these powers. 
Every thing conveyed as a prerogative to bishops, presiding 
elders, preachers, etc., by statutory provision, and not by the 



Conclusion. 



437 



constitution or in the restrictive rules, was in the General Con- 
ference, or it was mockery thus to grant it, and the tenure of 
these officers is void and their seizin tortious.* 

He also showed that the General Conference had 
the right to resume what it gave ; for example, to 
recall the power " to appoint a preacher to a field 
of labor," and to " make these regulations without a 
bishop and leave him a less onerous superintendence^ 

On this principle the bishops, if the Church de- 
sired, might be relieved of the work of ordination, 
and this duty might be placed on other presbyters. 
Without this work they could continue to have the 
executive duty of superintendence, and so would be 
true bishops. It appears, therefore, that even ordina- 
tion is not absolutely essential to the existence of the 
bishopric, though it may be deemed proper that the 
bishops have the chief part in that solemn service. 

There is a peculiar permanence about a clerical 
order that does not pertain to an office. Thus one 
may resign an ecclesiastical office without losing his 
clerical character, but if he resigns his order he ceases 
to be a minister altogether. Thus a presbyter who 
gives up his order ceases to be a minister, but a pre- 
siding elder may resign or relinquish his official posi- 
tion as a presiding elder and yet retain his presbyter's 
order. This illustrates one of the distinctions between 
an office and an order. 

Again, Churches that claim to have a higher order 
* Debates of General Conference of 1844, p. 131. f Ibid. 



438 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

episcopacy hold the doctrine " Once a bishop always 
a bishop," and so they permit a bishop to resign his 
jurisdiction without resigning his position as a bishop, 
because they conceive that to be an order. But when a 
Methodist Episcopal bishop resigns his official juris- 
diction he resigns every thing the bishopric gave him. 

Because of the peculiar permanence of tenure which 
belongs to a clerical order it is more difficult to re- 
move a minister from an order than it is from an 
office. Hence a minister cannot have his order taken 
from him without formal charges, formal trial, and 
formal conviction for a very serious olfense, but the 
Church has held that the same peculiar difficulty does 
not exist in relation to an officer. 

The action of the General Conference in the cases 
of Bishop Coke and Bishop Andrew was based on the 
ground that it was dealing with an office, and so it 
asserted its power to suspend or depose a bishop for 
less than crime, and that without the formalities 
which would have been necessary to divest a minister 
of his order ; and Bishop Harris, in his work on The 
Constitutional Powers of the General Conference, 
says that the General Conference of 1844 applied the 
"elementary doctrines of Methodist jurisprudence" 
and "expounded the law in its general principles" 
" most plainly and fully." * 

Again, there is nothing that bishops do that mere 
presbyters may not do under certain circumstances. 

* Bishop Harris on rowers of General Conference, pp. 149, 150. 



Conclusion. 



439 



For example, it is the duty of a bishop to preside in 
the Annual Conferences, but in the absence of the 
bishop an ordinary elder may preside ; and so the law 
provides that if there is no bishop the supervisory 
work of the bishops shall be done by elders. 

Should a bishop be accused of imprudent conduct 
he is to be admonished by elders, and when he is 
tried it is to be by presbyters. These facts are as- 
sertions that presbyters are the peers of bishops as to 
order, for a man is to be tried by his peers. 

In the services for setting apart deacons, elders, 
and bishops, the distinction which exists between 
them is brought out by the use of the word order in 
the form for the ordination of deacons and the form 
for the ordination of elders, while in the service for 
the consecration of elected elders to the episcopal 
office the word order is not used. 

The lesson used in the consecration of bishops is 
Acts xx, 17-35, which mentions Paul's calling "the 
elders of the Church," whom he addresses as "over- 
seers" or bishops. The service speaks of the one to 
be consecrated as " the elected person." Thus, " The 
elected person shall be presented by two elders," and 
" The bishop and elders present shall lay their hands 
upon the head of the elected person." The service 
also declares that God has " appointed divers offices " 
in the Church, and speaks of the bishopric as an 
" office." 

It is true that there is a peculiar sense in which 



440 The Episcopacy of Methodism. 

the presbyterate and diaconate may be spoken of as 
offices, but it is in a different sense from the use of 
the word office in reference to the episcopate, just 
as an ordinary presbyter has not an office in the 
same sense that a presiding elder has an official 
position. 

We must be careful not to be confused by the 
double sense in which the word office may be used, for 
it has various applications. Thus it may be applied 
to " The service appointed for a particular occasion ; 
as, the office of the mass ; the office for the burial of 
the dead." * It may be used in reference to a posi- 
tion occupied by one who is an officer. And, again, 
it may be used in the sense of a duty or work to be 
performed. f We must not be misled by the double 
or triple sense in which the word may be used, but 
must distinguish between these uses. 

The deacon and the presbyter have an office in the 
sense of duty to be discharged, which office or duty 
is involved in the order of deacon or elder ; but the 
bishop has an office in the sense of being an officer 
filling an official position. Thus a number of pres- 
byters may meet and elect one of their order presi- 
dent, and, as president, this presbyter holds an office 
in "a very different sense from that in which all may 
be said to have the office of presbyter. They are all 
of the same order, and the president is their superior 
merely as their presiding officer. So Pope says : 

* Webster. f Lat. officium, from ob and facere, to make or do. 



Conclusion. 



" There is no office of eldership as such, but there is, 
of course, an emofconrj" * or office of a bishop. 

The Church all along its history has admitted the 
distinction which exists between the words order and 
office. Words mean something, and have a living 
power, and an intelligent Church will not accept a 
new ecclesiastical term without clearly understanding 
its meaning and intention ; neither will it abandon an 
old word without good cause, any more than it will 
permit an old word to be used in a new, misleading, 
and false sense. Having recognized this distinction 
between order and office, the Methodist Episcopal 
Church cannot permit the distinction to be destroyed 
without great damage in many directions. 

It cannot permit its episcopal office to be called an 
order, even in a modified sense, for the modification 
would soon be forgotten, and the High-Church word 
would soon bring all that is implied in the High- 
Church idea. 

There are various practical reasons why it is im- 
portant to hold that the bishopric is not a distinct and 
superior order. To hold that the bishopric is a dis- 
tinct and superior order would be not only to shift 
from the old and well-established doctrines of the 
Church, but also to incur many ecclesiastical dangers. 

Thus it would carry with it the danger of prelacy. 
Prelacy is " the government of the Church by bish- 
ops," and all Churches which have a higher order 

* Pope's Systematic Theofogy, vol. iii, p. 343. 



4:4:2 



The Episcopacy of Methodism. 



episcopacy have a prelatical government ; for in such 
Churches the government is entirely or largely in the 
hands of the prelates. Even in the most moderate 
form there is a house of bishops with concurrent leg- 
islative powers as well as powers of supervision, and 
hence no law can be enacted that the higher order 
bishops do not permit. The Methodist Episcopal 
Church, however, is not a government by bishops, but 
a government with bishops. The Church governs, 
in some particulars, with bishops, as its agents, in 
the interim of the General Conferences, but the 
bishops are responsible to the General Conference. 
Hence, while the bishops are superintendents, they 
have no legislative functions, either as a body or 
as individuals. While they are subject to the Gen- 
eral Conference, they are not members of that body, 
and, though they are the presiding officers, they have 
no voice or vote in its deliberations,* or in the delib- 
erations of an Annual Conference. If it were once 
admitted that the bishops had a higher clerical order, 
then the tendency would be to overturn the present 
law and usage, and instead of a government with 
bishops, to establish a government by bishops, which 
would be prelacy. The prelatical word would be the 
entering wedge of the thing it represents. The ten- 

* This was re-asserted in the General Conference of 1884, when 
the Conference denied the right of a bishop to represent a committee, 
though it proffered him the privilege. — Daily Christian Advocate for 
1884, p. 179. 



Conclusion. 



443 



dency would be to isolate the bishops from the elders, 
and make them a separate house with concurrent 
legislative and veto power, so that no law could be 
enacted that they did not approve. 

The aim of Methodism has been to go back to the 
simplicity of New Testament times. Its episcopacy, 
therefore, is not of the High-Church order, but of the 
type of the primitive Christian Church, and hence it 
is not open to the attacks which may be made upon 
the episcopacy of some other Churches. 

The early Christian Church began with a simple 
episcopate, which in the course of years gradually 
became intricate, erroneous, and corrupt ; the Church 
of England, at the Reformation, started with a purer 
view of the episcopate, but gradually passed to higher 
order views and consequent exclusiveness ; John 
Wesley started with the High-Church views which 
in his day prevailed in the Anglican Church, and 
gradually modified these opinions, and at last accepted 
the view of the episcopate that prevailed in the early 
Christian Church. Methodism received these Low- 
Church views, and has retained them ever since, and 
one mission of the Methodist Episcopal Church is to 
maintain the simple and liberal ideas of ecclesiastical 
government which are in harmony with the teachings 
of the New Testament and the practice of the uncor- 
rupted Christian Church. 



CONTENTS OF CHAPTERS. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE BISHOPRIC IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

Presbyters and bishops — Meaning of the words — Applied to same per- 
sons—Gradual change of application — Hatch on the organization of the 
early Christian Church — Pope — Farrar — Stanley — Onderdonk — Views of 
the fathers — Teaching of the twelve apostles — New Testament references 
— Lightfoot's opinion — Moslieim— Stanley — Neander — Pope's Theology — 
Title bishop limited to presiding presbyter — Diocesan bishops— Rural 
bi-hops — Metropolitan bishops— Primates — The papacy Page 11 

CHAPTER II. 

EPISCOPACY IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

After the Reformation — Episcopacy retained in England — Discarded on 
the Continent — View of English reformers — Bishops and presbyters the 
same order — Bishopric an office — Non-episcopal ordination recognized — 
Close relations with non-episcopal Churches — Articles of religion — Book 
of Common Prayer — Definition of a Church — Of a lawful ministry — Eccle- 
siastical diversities admitted — Presbyterian ministers received without 
reordination— Apostolical succession not essential — Change of view at the 
close of Elizabeth's time — Puritanism — Beginning of claim that bishops 
were by divine right — Bancroft — Hooker — Laud — Bishop Hall — No dif- 
ference on essential points with non-episcopal Churches — Usher's view — 
Stillingfleet — Act of uniformity in 1661 — Up to that time the validity of 
presbyterial ordination recognized — Triumph of the opposite view 52 

CHAPTER III. 

WESLEY'S VIEWS OF EPISCOPACY, ORDINATION, AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 

John Wesley the founder of Methodism— His original intention — High- 
Church notions— Gradual change of opinion — Beginning of Methodist or- 
ganization — Definition of Church of England — Early recognition of the 
possibility of the Methodists becoming a district Church— Wesley's view 
of the evolution of episcopacy — Struggles against early prejudice— Influ- 
enced, by Lord King's Primitive Church — Accepts the view that bishops 
and presbyters are the same order — Growing liberality — Association 
with Dissenters — The question of ordaining his preachers considered — 
The sacraments among the English Methodists — Accepts view that epis- 
copal government is not essential to the validity of a Church — Does not 
call Dissenters schismatics — Denies apostolic succession — Charles Wesley 
irregular as well as John— According to Bishop Porteus both John and 
Charles Wesley had separated from the Establishment, and the Method- 
ists were not of the Church of England— John Wesley asserts his right to 



Contents of Chaptfrs. 445 



ordain. — Provides for the perpetuation of organic Methodism — The 
Methodist organization distinct from Church of England before Wesley's 
death — Foresaw that the Methodists would be separate — According to 
Charles Wesley and Lord Mansfield John Wesley did separate from the 
Church of England — W esley meant Methodism to have a distinct organic 
existence Page 86 



CHAPTER IV. 

WESLEY'S RELATION TO THE EPISCOPATE OF AMERICAN METHODISM. 

Whitefield in America— Preparation for Wesleyan Methodism — Its in- 
troduction into America — Wesley's general assistant in America — Asbury 
and Rankin — Disastrous effect of Revolutionary War on Church of En- 
gland in America — Methodism a compact and well organized body — 
Methodists and the sacraments — The few clergymen could not meet the 
demand — Methodist preachers propose to administer the sacraments to 
their own people — Virginia Conference ordains some of them — Division 
on the question — Grounds of the right to administer — Conference between 
Northern and Southern preachers — The latter agree to suspend the admin- 
istration and that the case be appealed to Wesley — Asbury aquaints 
Wesley with the condition of affairs — Wesley decides to send Dr. Coke 
and two preachers to America — Could not induce the English bishops to 
ordain preachers for America — Dr. Seabury's difficulty in securing conse- 
cration— T lie Methodists under the care of the Countess of Huntingdon 
withdraw from the Church of England and ordain ministers — Wesley exer- 
cises his right to ordain, and ordains Whatcoat and Vasey — Assisted by 
two presbyters — The validity of this ordination — Wesley's authority sus- 
tained by Saravia, Hooker, and the Anglican articles — The true idea of 
ordination — The place does not affect the act — Bishop Seabury conse- 
crated in a private house — Wesley ordains preachers for Scotland and 
other places — Considered that the Methodists constituted a Church — He 
was its head or bishop — Makes Dr. Coke a superintendent for America — 
Did he originally intend to formally consecrate him to this office — 
Church at Alexandria used no service of consecration — Wesley did conse- 
crate Coke — Did he make him a bishop — Did he give him a higher order 
than that of presbyter? — Imposition of hands not ordination — Letters testi- 
monial — Bishops and presbyters the same order— Letter to American 
Methodists — Prepares a liturgy and other services for Methodists in the 
United States — Articles of religion — Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey sail for 
America 147 



CHAPTER V. 

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 

Different denominations injuriously affected by the Revolution — Pres- 
byterians — Baptists— Church of England clergy scattered and churches 
in many places closed — No general organization — Approaching annihila- 
tion — Prejudices against English Church and bishops — Difficulties in the 
way of an organization of the remains— Dr. White proposes a presbyterial 
plan — His liberal views— Answered by ten Connecticut clergy — In secret 
meeting they select Dr. Seabury to secure episcopal consecration — 
Reasons for secrecy — Who was Seabury? — Sails for England — Difficulties 
met in England— First steps toward organization of Protestant Episcopal 
Church — Seabury's views of the law an indorsement of Wesley's posi- 
tion — Fails to secure consecration from regular English bishops — Holds 
"irregular" consecration in reserve — Clergymen who had received 



•±46 Contents of Chapters. 



"irregular" consecration for America — Seabury reorganizes "irregular" 
non-juring bishops as true bishops — Coke lands in America — The first 
American bishop after the Revolution — Baptist bishops in Virginia — New- 
obstacles in the "way of Seabury — The right of the Methodists to organize 
recognized in the preface to the Protestant Episcopal Prayer Book — Not 
certain that the remains of the Church of England would be organized — 
The Methodists had a distinct organization — Did not separate from the 
Church of England or the Protestant Episcopal Church — These did not 
exist — Emerged from the ruins of the Church of England in America — 
Coke seeks Asbury — The meeting at Barrett's Chapel in Delaware — As- 
bury will not accept position of joint superintendent without an election 
— Council of preachers favor a conference of all the preachers — Garrett- 
son sent to notify them — The Conference at Baltimore on the 24th of 
December, 1784 — Its composition — They organize the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church — Did Wesley mean they should? — Coke and Asbury elected 
superintendents — Asbury ordained deacon and elder — Set apart as super- 
intendent — Other ordinations — A college projected — A Church with a 
liturgy and clergy with gowns — The new Church gladly accepted by 
ministers and people — Dr. Seabury consecrated in Scotland by non-jurors 
— The Protestant Episcopal Church organized in 1785 — Bishop Seabury's 
diocese did not unite until 1789 — The Protestant Episcopal Church not 
complete with three bishops in the English line until 1790 — Bishop Sea- 
bury's consecration recognized as valid, but no consecration permitted un- 
til there were three bishops in the English line — The Methodist Epis- 
copal Church organized before the Protestant Episcopal — Its rapid 
growth Page 235 

CHAPTER VL 

THE SUPERINTENDENCE 

Its nature — In harmony with Wesley's views — A bishop a presbyter 
performing the work of oversight— The bishopric an office of oversight — 
Followed the Scriptures and the primitive Church — The bishopric an office 
filled by a presbyter — The superintendents were elders and the superin- 
tendency was a presbyterial episcopacy — Making Presbyter Wesley their 
supreme authority — The parity of bishops and presbyters — The basal 
principle 299 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE EPISCOPATE FROM 1784 UNTIL THE DEATH OF ASBURY. 

The word bishop in the Minutes of 1785 — Explaining the title superin- 
tendent — Work of editor — Wesley's personal authority — Asbury recon- 
structing Discipline — Conference of 1787 — Wesley claimed authority to 
name and remove superintendents — Conference refuses to yield to Wesley 
— Declines to have Whatcoat as a superintendent — Annuls the agreement 
to obey Wesley — Effect on Wesley — Asbury's relation to the act— Coke's 
official action' challenged — Coke' agreed not to act as superintendent 

when out of the United States Not a superintendent when out of 

the United States — Supreme power of the Conference — Discipline re- 
vised and rearranged — Insertion of title bishops — Not by Conference 
but by the superintendents — Conference permits the title to stand — The 
superintendents were bishops— Wesley's displeasure with the change of 
name, but not with the episcopate — His letter — Introduction to Discipline 
— Whose work — New introduction — Wesley honored " as the father of the 
whole work" — Wesley's name restored to the Minutes — Wesley formally 



Contents of Chaptees. 



447 



recognized as filling the episcopal office — Bishop Wesley a presbyter — 
Secessions — No ordering in the service for bishops — Dickins's declaration 
that nothing was conferred by the service — Use of the word consecration 
— Coke and Asbury's notes on the Discipline — The episcopate an office — 
Bishop Coke offers his services for America, etc. — Reduced to an assistant 
— As bury proposes to resign — Coke permitted to return to Europe — The 
new bishop to be equal to Asbury in authority — Whatcoat elected — Coke 
permitted to return to Europe subject to recall — Delegated General Con- 
ferences decided upon — Restrictions on their power — Coke to the General 
Conference of 1808 — Power of General Conferences — Coke not to exercise 
the office of bishop unless recalled — A suspension or deposition — Coke 
explains his letter to Bishop White — Validity of Asbury's consecration — 
Coke's opinion that bishops and presbyters are the same order. . Page 316 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE BISHOPRIC FROM THE DEATH OF ASBURY TO 1844. 

Ezekiel Cooper's testimony that bishops were presbyters — Controver- 
sies — Bangs on Methodist Episcopacy — Emory's Defense of Oar Fathers 
— Bangs' s Original Church of Christ — Bangs' s History — Emory's views — 
Dr. Bond's — Hedding on Discipline — Elliott's Life, of Bishop Roberts — 
Presbyterial ordination — Imposition of hands not absolutely necessary, 
but appropriate — Power of bishops — Not a distinct order 374 

CHAPTER IX. 

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1844. 

Light on the episcopate — Address of the bishops — Subjection of bishops 
— Episcopate mainly executive — Orders conferred by the Conference and 
not by bishop — Bishops confirm — Bishops and presbyters the same order 
— The bishopric an office — The case of Bishop J. O. Andrew — Resolu- 
tions — Suspension or deposition — Nature of episcopate and power of Con- 
ference — Griffiths — Bangs — Cass — Comfort — Peck — Collins — Winner — 
Durbin — Hamline — Elders equal to bishops in orders — Power of General 
Conference to suspend or depose without formal charges or formal trial — 
Law of expediency — Protest of minority — Views never advanced by 
Church— Dr. Bond's comments— Committee to reply ordered on M. Simp- 
son's motion— Reply to the Protest— Analysis of episcopal power and 
rights of General (Jonference — Control over bishops — On motion of E. R. 
Ames entered on Journal and ordered to be printed by vote of 116 
to 26 387 

CHAPTER X. 

THE EPISCOPATE FROM 1844 TO 1884. 

Stevens's Church Polity — Bishops primi inter pares — General Confer- 
ence of 1852 — Bishop Hamline resigns — Resignation accepted— Goes back 
to his Conference as an elder — Dr. Eddy's explanation— The ritual — Cor- 
rections needed — Amendment of C. Kingsley — Committees on revision- 
Committee of 1856 reported that the services contained grave errors which 
the Church had never accepted — Changes made by General Conference! of 
1»64 — Ordination stricken out and consecration inserted — Stevens's Cen- 
tenary of American Metiiodism — A bishop the first among equals— Bisii- 
op Scott in addressing a Conference calls himself a presbyter — Porter's 
History of Methodum— Bishop Simpson's Hundred Yearn of Methodism 
— E. O. Haven's article — The parity of bishops and presbyters main- 
tained 409 



us 



Contents of Chapters. 



CHAPTER XL 



THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1884. 



Errors of isolated individuals — Misuse of words order and office — 
Church held the same view from the beginning — Resolution reaffirming 
the doctrine that the bishopric is an office and that bishops are presbyters 
— Adopted almost unanimously -Dr. Curry — Dr. Buckley — Explanatory 
note proposed to be placed in Discipline — The service for bishops elect 
not an ordination — Prevailed by an almost unanimous vote— Fraternal 
letter to the Presbyterian General Assembly — The same view held by the 



The Church has always recognized the distinction between order and 
official position— Order of elder, office of presiding elder — Office of bish- 
op — How many orders may a Church make — How many did the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church make — The diaconate and presbyterate — Forms of 
Church go vernment — The episcopate has not an element of order above 
the presbyterate — Nature of an order — Presbyters the fountain of ordi- 
nation — Powers of bishop not inherent but delegated — Authority of the 
General Conference over the office — Hamline in 1844 — An office has not 
the peculiar permanence of an order — A bishop may resign and be a mere 
elder — One may be removed from an office as he cannot from an order — 
Bishop Harris on powers of General Conference — Presbyters can do what 
bishops do — Bishops tried by presbyters, who are their peers — The services 
for deacons and elders use the word order — The service for bishops does 
not — Implies they are presbyters — Different uses of the word office — The 
bishop an officer — Danger of misuse of words — Practical reasons against 
applying word order to bishops — Tendency toward prelacy — A govern- 
ment with but not by bishops — Chancres of view in the early Christian 
Church — In the Church of England— Wesley from High-Church to Low- 
Church views — Mission of Methodism to maintain views of the uncor- 
rupted Christian Church 430 



Church from the beginning 



Page 422 



CHAPTER XII. 



CONCLUSION. 



THE END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



